I am all for gay rights, but I can not agree with this argument. Most people that I know who prefer their same sex are not spending the majority of their resources supporting their hetero siblings. Sure, it could happen.
Is it a defect or is it nature’s way of saying, “Whoa! Slow down, sparky. There are far too many of you already.”
Considering the definition of apostate, "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause," it is apropriate. By practicing polygamy, which the LDS Church abandoned in the late 1800s, they fit the definition of an apostate.I agree that he has a right to say what he wants. However, I also think that calling someone else un-American for exercising the same right borders on hypocrasy. Personally, I wonder if Hanks just hates Mormons, since he has spent the last several years producing a show that gives a very skewed view of what we believe and presenting a group of apostates as mainstream Mormons.Is calling them apostate any worse than calling them un-American? I'm sure they'd take issue with either title.
It is unamerican and just for the record it only passed by 2%
Is it a defect or is it nature’s way of saying, “Whoa! Slow down, sparky. There are far too many of you already.”
Assuming that is the case, then would that make homosexuals having children artificially "unnatural" (going against what nature is causing, i.e. decrease in reproductive members).
Frankly I don't really buy the whole thing that "nature" causes homosexuality to slow down the population. Wouldn't it be more logical that we would see more infertility (per capita) if that was actually the cause?
I am all for gay rights, but I can not agree with this argument. Most people that I know who prefer their same sex are not spending the majority of their resources supporting their hetero siblings. Sure, it could happen.
Is it a defect or is it nature’s way of saying, “Whoa! Slow down, sparky. There are far too many of you already.”
Slow Down Sparky does not work as an evolutionary theory without more of an explanation on how that helps your genes. If its just for the good of the environment in general it can't exist because, if you slow down and I don't, I eventually breed you out of existence. There probably needs to be more utility to it then that for these genes to come into play. Now if one comes up with a reason why groups with kin that 'slowed' down had more of their offspring survive then groups without such kin then one has a viable evolutionary hypothesis.
Note also that one does not really need to show that modern homosexuals are spending the majority of their resources on their siblings to explain this - as it stands, in modern society, no one generally spends less on ones kin then is presumed for fairly close nit kin groups in hunter-gathering societies. Also the advantage does not have to be dramatic. The key is that these genes require that kin groups having such individuals did a little better and hence the genes carried forward.
As far as I see, "nature" in the selection meaning is not too much of a concern for human society, as most of our system and legislations have progressively abandoned elements which would favor things like survival of the fittest and reproduction of the species:
1) equal-opportunity, that is, the 20th century (fortunately) saw the end of condemning people with any kind of disability to being 2nd rate citizens (if at all).
2) in more than a few countries of the world, legal wariness against children's marriage (especially of a child with an adult). Out of concern for maturity of the child/adolescent, we are strongly curtailing years of fertile age.
Let's face, from a sociological/scientific point of view, we humans are something more than animals (or something less): preservation instinct is seeped in cultural and political (in the wide sense) considerations.
From a religious PoV, of course, defining a sexual behavior as "unnatural" is quite problematic, as it raises huge theodicy issues, especially among monotheists: "If God is All-Mighty, how does he allow "unnatural" stuff?" Either he is not so allmighty, or there are not really unnatural things, or perhaps he is actually evil (or simultaneously good and evil), from monotheist ethics perspective.
I love arguing with religious people on that particular topic, but, sadly, theodicy is quite on the low in theological studies nowadays.
|
Good Point, just goes to show how a good slogan or jingle can be remembered regardless of factuality to the good or bane of something; take the Pop Rocks example; proven to be safe regardless of how many cokes you drink, the product never recovered from the peoples perception of the truth.
I just saw chocolate Pop Rocks. I wonder how that would taste with vanilla Coke.
|
|
From a religious PoV, of course, defining a sexual behavior as "unnatural" is quite problematic, as it raises huge theodicy issues, especially among monotheists: "If God is All-Mighty, how does he allow "unnatural" stuff?" Either he is not so allmighty, or there are not really unnatural things, or perhaps he is actually evil (or simultaneously good and evil), from monotheist ethics perspective.
Simple answer, God is all powerful, but he is also not a dictator. He has given us this chance to learn, and in order for us to learn whe must have the freedom to make our own choices. Therefore, we must be able to make the wrong choice in order to understand why we should make the right choice. Without pain we cannot appreciate pleasure, without ugliness we cannot appreciate beauty, without disobedience we cannot appreciate obedience.
He has given us this chance to learn, and in order for us to learn whe must have the freedom to make our own choices.
Why?
|
Simple answer, God is all powerful, but he is also not a dictator. He has given us this chance to learn, and in order for us to learn whe must have the freedom to make our own choices. Therefore, we must be able to make the wrong choice in order to understand why we should make the right choice. Without pain we cannot appreciate pleasure, without ugliness we cannot appreciate beauty, without disobedience we cannot appreciate obedience.
From a religious PoV, of course, defining a sexual behavior as "unnatural" is quite problematic, as it raises huge theodicy issues, especially among monotheists: "If God is All-Mighty, how does he allow "unnatural" stuff?" Either he is not so allmighty, or there are not really unnatural things, or perhaps he is actually evil (or simultaneously good and evil), from monotheist ethics perspective.
Arguably, he is a dictator. If you don't do exactly what he tells you, he condemns you to an eternity of torture.
On unnatural, homosexuality isn't, as dolphins, chimpanzees, penguins, cats, wolves and a whole host of other species practice it. Arguably marriage is much more unnatural as not one species other than us practices it.
Simple answer, God is all powerful, but he is also not a dictator. He has given us this chance to learn, and in order for us to learn whe must have the freedom to make our own choices. Therefore, we must be able to make the wrong choice in order to understand why we should make the right choice. Without pain we cannot appreciate pleasure, without ugliness we cannot appreciate beauty, without disobedience we cannot appreciate obedience.
From a religious PoV, of course, defining a sexual behavior as "unnatural" is quite problematic, as it raises huge theodicy issues, especially among monotheists: "If God is All-Mighty, how does he allow "unnatural" stuff?" Either he is not so allmighty, or there are not really unnatural things, or perhaps he is actually evil (or simultaneously good and evil), from monotheist ethics perspective.
A fictional character that could have been replaced with Aesop's Fables gave me the "chance" to learn ?
Oh wow...<insert massive vomitting sound here>...ungghh...anyone have a breath mint?
Arguably marriage is much more unnatural as not one species other than us practices it.
Many mate for life though.
Arguably marriage is much more unnatural as not one species other than us practices it.Many mate for life though.
Pres man, I invite you to do the math and determine exactly what percentage of species mate for life vs those that don't...
Please report your findings here and show your math...
...and show your math...
Hey! There may be children present.
|
|
Simple answer, God is all powerful, but he is also not a dictator. He has given us this chance to learn, and in order for us to learn whe must have the freedom to make our own choices. Therefore, we must be able to make the wrong choice in order to understand why we should make the right choice. Without pain we cannot appreciate pleasure, without ugliness we cannot appreciate beauty, without disobedience we cannot appreciate obedience.
From a religious PoV, of course, defining a sexual behavior as "unnatural" is quite problematic, as it raises huge theodicy issues, especially among monotheists: "If God is All-Mighty, how does he allow "unnatural" stuff?" Either he is not so allmighty, or there are not really unnatural things, or perhaps he is actually evil (or simultaneously good and evil), from monotheist ethics perspective.
A fictional character that could have been replaced with Aesop's Fables gave me the "chance" to learn ?
Oh wow...<insert massive vomitting sound here>...ungghh...anyone have a breath mint?
Come on now. Andreas asked for the answer from a religous point of veiw. Just because you don't happen to be religious or believe in God does not mean you have to insult those who do. Your comment is a prime example of why some people want to see these types of threads banned. Intolerence only creates more intolerence.
Come on now. Andreas asked for the answer from a religous point of veiw. Just because you don't happen to be religious or believe in God does not mean you have to insult those who do. Your comment is a prime example of why some people want to see these types of threads banned. Intolerence only creates more intolerence.
No, David, the statement that "God gave us the chance to learn" is not proven, and is therefore a personal feeling / opinion. I merely stated mine. You are guilty of falling into the trap that simply stating an opposing viewpoint is negative and or intolerant.
This is the error of being politcally correct.
|
|
Arguably, he is a dictator. If you don't do exactly what he tells you, he condemns you to an eternity of torture.
That is one point of view. However, the earliest copies of the books which would become the New Testiment actually use the phrase "godly torment" rather than "eternal torment." Paul describes those who don't repent as having to suffer "as Jesus suffered." Arguably Jesus's suffering ended and so will the suffering of unrepentent sinners.
On a different note, to say God is a dictator because we suffer the penelty of breaking his laws is to say that we live in a dictatorship in the United States and other countries with Parlimentary democracies. After all, if you break a law, you pay a penalty. The only way that you could live in a world where there is no punishment, either for sin or for crime, would be to live in complete anarchy.
On unnatural, homosexuality isn't, as dolphins, chimpanzees, penguins, cats, wolves and a whole host of other species practice it. Arguably marriage is much more unnatural as not one species other than us practices it.
Yes, well I never said that it was unnatural. I assumed that Andreas was using unnatural in a more general sense and I responded to it in a general sense. I apologize for any confusion or insult.
|
|
Come on now. Andreas asked for the answer from a religous point of veiw. Just because you don't happen to be religious or believe in God does not mean you have to insult those who do. Your comment is a prime example of why some people want to see these types of threads banned. Intolerence only creates more intolerence.No, David, the statement that "God gave us the chance to learn" is not proven, and is therefore a personal feeling / opinion. I merely stated mine. You are guilty of falling into the trap that simply stating an opposing viewpoint is negative and or intolerant.
This is the error of being politcally correct.
Pretending to throw up and then asking for a breath mint is not expressing a disenting opinion, it is behaving in an insulting manner. If you had said that you do not believe in God and felt my statement was in error, that would have been expressing an opposing view point.
Edit: I never said my statement was proven fact. I was simply presenting an answer to a question from the point of reference the questioner wished to know the answer from.
Pretending to throw up and then asking for a breath mint is not expressing a disenting opinion, it is behaving in an insulting manner. If you had said that you do not believe in God and felt my statement was in error, that would have been expressing an opposing view point.
That, is your perception.
I have ZERO control over that.
I was merely adding an expressive statement to my opinion to expound on my explicit feelings regarding the opinion that a fantasy character gave ME the "chance" to learn.
It is VIOLENTLY REPULSIVE to me that someone would think that they or anyone for that matter was "given the chance to learn" by a character of literature. There. Now I've disclosed that I have been insulted. What is your say to that? Am I not due my own right to retort? Did I not keep my feeling of being insulted to myself? Yes, I did.
Again, this is PRECISELY what is wrong with being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct. We ALL have feelings and opinions. WE CHOOSE whether we allow them to upset us or dictate our actions. I refuse to edit my opinion, which I am allowed to have freely so long as I abide by the the conditions agreed to by posting on this forum.
Edit: I never said my statement was proven fact. I was simply presenting an answer to a question from the point of reference the questioner wished to know the answer from.
Whether you said it or not, whether you proposed it as factual or not....does not matter.
I merely stated my opinion, my belief, and my feeling.
Sorry, but no harm done. No intolerance here.
I wouldn't expect a poodle to understand.
Well it is all very confusing. If "without disobedience we cannot appreciate obedience", does that mean god wants me to be disobedient?
Please note, I am not trying to gang up on you, David. I am not affiliated with the other non-believers.
|
|
I was merely adding an expressive statement to my opinion to expound on my explicit feelings regarding the opinion that a fantasy character gave ME the "chance" to learn.
It is VIOLENTLY REPULSIVE to me that someone would think that they or anyone for that matter was "given the chance to learn" by a character of literature. There. Now I've disclosed that I have been insulted. What is your say to that? Am I not due my own right to retort? Did I not keep my feeling of being insulted to myself? Yes, I did.
Okay, lets take a step back and look at this from a logical standpoint. You claim that you are not intolerant, but at the same time you admit that you are personally insulted by someone having a differing viewpoint from you on this matter. Whether you realize it or not, this is the very description of intolerence. I am not insulted by the fact that you don't believe in God, but you say that you are insulted by the fact that I do. I'm sorry that the fact that I have different viewpoint is upsetting to you, but that still gives you no right to insult myself and others, whether they be Christian, Jews, Muslims, etc. simply for believing in God.
|
|
I wouldn't expect a poodle to understand.Well it is all very confusing. If "without disobedience we cannot appreciate obedience", does that mean god wants me to be disobedient?
Please note, I am not trying to gang up on you, David. I am not affiliated with the other non-believers.
Well that particular statement might have been misphrased. Basicly I was trying to say that in order for us to grow, we must face opposition. Therefore We must face challenges in our life, both physically and morally, so we can grow into the person that we were meant to become.
|
|
I personally have the choice of being intolerant. What I do not have is the option of telling you that you are wrong, or that may not believe what you choose to believe, or to worship the way you choose to worship.
There is no proff that I am wrong, just as there is no proof that I'm right. Therefore you can only tell me you think I'm wrong.
EDIT: It almost smacks of not being fully decided on your part if my statement of personal belief insults you so deeply that you feel the need to respond...
Actually, it was you who said you were so insulted that you felt the need to respond. My only response to you was to ask you to try and be a little more civil.
Therefore We must face challenges in our life, both physically and morally, so we can grow into the person that we were meant to become.
And still the question remains. Why? If god is all powerful why did he create a universe in which we must be taught or must endure pain. It really does not sound like a loving, caring being to me.
I removed my post because I felt it was more inflammatory than conveying my thoughts, and simply decided it would be best to delete it.
David, I am concerned that an opposing thought/belief/opinion, vehemently stated, is labelled as being "Intolerant".
IMHO, Civil is not the same as Intolerant. Civil was restraining myself from using personal attacks, using foul language, "yo momma", etc.
Intolerant in my opinion is more of a matter of somehow attempting to force my viewpoint upon yours, and in doing so declaring that your viewpoint is invalid.
But again, [I am concerned with the fact that it genuinely appears that if someone disagees, they get a label applied to them.
Actually, it was you who said you were so insulted that you felt the need to respond. My only response to you was to ask you to try and be a little more civil.
Which was NOT what I originally said. And actually, I was merely using that phrase to prove a point I was making in the statement.
No more circles about this...I simply stated that I vehemently do not agree.
And with regards to your request to being more civil...
Nope. Not gonna happen. I was not "un-civil" IMHO. I cannot predict what will offend your potentially fragile set of sensibilities, so I will simply stay civil in my sense of the word.
Sorry.
|
|
Therefore We must face challenges in our life, both physically and morally, so we can grow into the person that we were meant to become.And still the question remains. Why? If god is all powerful why did he create a universe in which we must be taught or must endure pain. It really does not sound like a loving, caring being to me.
Well, I will try to answer your question, but I'm not sure I can do it in a manner that would be acceptible to a non-Religious person. Ultimately it becomes a matter of faith.
However, God knew that we would all go astray and so Jesus volunteered to come to Earth and atone for our sins so we did not have to. Then we would be able to return to live with God through a combination of our own efforts and the grace of Christ. Once everyone got a shot at life, we would all be judged and then assigned to live in a degree of glory where we, based on our behavior in life, would be most comfortable living. Only the very worst peopel would be entirely cut off from God's presence.
We are in the period where we are learning and growing for the purpose of returning to live with our Heavenly Father. We have been given a great gift, because we have the option of forming our own destiny. Once we have had our shot, we will get to decide where we end up at the end. And most importantly of all, we have the opportunity to become just like our Father in Heaven and inherit all of his glory. As a good father, he wants nothing less for us, but first we have to earn it.
Well, I will try to answer your question, but I'm not sure I can do it in a manner that would be acceptible to a non-Religious person. Ultimately it becomes a matter of faith.
So, civil is the same as being tolerant which is the same as being acceptable?
David, come on. All I did was DISAGREE. And did so vehemently. I never once said it was unacceptable for you to state your opinion.
I simply stated mine (albeit vehemently).
flynn, david,
I beseech you to check out Erian_7's "Civil Religious Discussion" thread. Most of these issues have been discussed at length (and somewhat more politely than they are here). One of the hallmarks that Erian and Moff and I tried to adhere to was that believers should never start from the viewpoint that their own views were "obviously true," and that, conversely, non-believers should not make the immediate assumption that "unproven/possibly make-believe" = foolish.
flynn, david,
I beseech you to check out Erian_7's "Civil Religious Discussion" thread. Most of these issues have been discussed at length (and somewhat more politely than they are here). One of the hallmarks that Erian and Moff and I tried to adhere to was that believers should never start from the viewpoint that their own views were "obviously true," and that, conversely, non-believers should not make the immediate assumption that "unproven/possibly make-believe" = foolish.
Kirth, fantastic...you two found a protocol that fits the two of you.
I however, disagree, and will not adhere to the standards you just proposed.
Well, I will try to answer your question, but I'm not sure I can do it in a manner that would be acceptible to a non-Religious person. Ultimately it becomes a matter of faith.So, civil is the same as being tolerant which is the same as being acceptable?
That was not even directed at you.
I asked for David's opinion and I would like to hear it. Even if it is faith based.
Well, I will try to answer your question, but I'm not sure I can do it in a manner that would be acceptible to a non-Religious person. Ultimately it becomes a matter of faith.So, civil is the same as being tolerant which is the same as being acceptable?That was not even directed at you.
I asked for David's opinion and I would like to hear it. Even if it is faith based.
WOW...lookin for a bruisin !!! :)
Fool, yes, it was undeniably directed at me...
Just because I disagree with alot of things people say here doesn't mean that I am a complete a$^#$%le...
Did you even finish reading what I wrote?
|
|
Arguably, he is a dictator. If you don't do exactly what he tells you, he condemns you to an eternity of torture.
That is one point of view. However, the earliest copies of the books which would become the New Testiment actually use the phrase "godly torment" rather than "eternal torment." Paul describes those who don't repent as having to suffer "as Jesus suffered." Arguably Jesus's suffering ended and so will the suffering of unrepentent sinners.
On a different note, to say God is a dictator because we suffer the penelty of breaking his laws is to say that we live in a dictatorship in the United States and other countries with Parlimentary democracies. After all, if you break a law, you pay a penalty. The only way that you could live in a world where there is no punishment, either for sin or for crime, would be to live in complete anarchy.
On unnatural, homosexuality isn't, as dolphins, chimpanzees, penguins, cats, wolves and a whole host of other species practice it. Arguably marriage is much more unnatural as not one species other than us practices it.Yes, well I never said that it was unnatural. I assumed that Andreas was using unnatural in a more general sense and I responded to it in a general sense. I apologize for any confusion or insult.
David,
Actually, he's a dictator because he issues directive with no input from the ruled. That is the definition of a dictator. He may be a benevolent dictator, but dictator he most certainly is.The eternal punishment is why he's not a benevolent dictator.
EDIT: Sorry. I'm bowing out as I'm starting to get into the territory where I'm insulting people's faith for no good reason.
Kirth, fantastic...you two found a protocol that fits the two of you. I however, disagree, and will not adhere to the standards you just proposed.
(Shrug) That format allowed for a free exchange of ideas from quite a number of us, rather than just random grumbling and ranting. If the latter is more to your taste, then don't be surprised if no one (who doesn't already agree with you) takes your posts too seriously, is all.
Ultimately it becomes a matter of faith.
I agree that at some point we have to take some things on faith. No one knows all the answers to the questions in the universe. What is more, no one individual possesses the knowledge of all mankind. So when my doctor tells me I have the flu and I should take this medication, I take it on faith.
However, the whole You Gotta Have Faith argument just smells like a con man’s game to me. “Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?”
No one can prove that Santa Claus does not exist, yet we all readily dismiss him. Why? Why is the lack of proof of god treated differently?
|
|
Why is the lack of proof of god treated differently?
Why is the lack of proof of secular humanism, or any other non-theistic philisophical system, treated differently?
I have read:
Leviathan
Utopia
The Second Treatise of Government
On Liberty
The Social Contract
The Declaration of Independence
Every single one of them is ultimately founded on an unproven, and indeed absolutely unprovable, series of premises. Yet people not only treat them, and endless other books on political and moral philosophy, as absolutes, whose every word is a transcendent expression of Truth (TM), that is "self-evident" to anyone and everyone.
By what rational standard is one unproven and unprovable philosophy somehow superior to any other, or to any theology?
Unproven and unprovable:
Our senses are generally reliable.
The natural world is consistent and can be measured.
The natural world is consistent and can be predicted.
Other minds exist.
The external world exists.
Let's see, what else does science depend on...
|
|
Unproven and unprovable:
Our senses are generally reliable.
Generally is a far cry from totally. You could never publish a paper based on results from equipment that is "generally" reliable.
The natural world is consistent and can be measured.
Oh? You have a functioning model to predict genetic variation? You have resolved quantum physics?
The natural world is consistent and can be predicted.
What will the weather be for the next six months, with exact temperatures and amounts of precipitation for every day?
Those two pretty much define Chaos Theory.
Other minds exist.
They do? Or must we merely assume they do?
The external world exists.
It does? Or must we merely assume it does?
Those two are the very definition of what solipsism "rebuts".
Let's see, what else does science depend on...
Hopefully more concrete factors than those!
Generally is a far cry from totally. You could never publish a paper based on results from equipment that is "generally" reliable.
But this is exactly what every paper that is based on sense observation does. The fact that it is not recognized is where the issues lies. And unless you think sense perception is generally reliable, you can't get science off the ground. Hence, sense reliability is a first principle, and first principles are the objects of faith. The only other option is to say that the senses are infallible, which is an easily falsifiable position given contradictory instances.
|
|
But this is exactly what every paper that is based on sense observation does. The fact that it is not recognized is where the issues lies. And unless you think sense perception is generally reliable, you can't get science off the ground. Hence, sense reliability is a first principle, and first principles are the objects of faith. The only other option is to say that the senses are infallible, which is an easily falsifiable position given contradictory instances.
So then you acknowledge that science is as much an issue of faith as any theology.
That leads directly back to my question:
By what rational standard is one unproven and unprovable philosophy somehow superior to any other, or to any theology?
It seems your answer is "none".
It should therefore be easily foreseeable that people accepting said varied theologies will not be particularly impressed with the various claims of scientific supremacy, or particularly tolerant of dismissals of their theological principles.
My answer doesn't have to be none, indeed, there is no reason why my answer should be none. All I need is to have a probable, cumulative case argument that does the (arguably) best job of explaining the evidence, and does a good job of accounting for possible objections and undermining. There is no need for skepticism any more than there is a need for the rejection of faith. It is not irrational to hold first principles for which one has good reasons.
Edit: Perhaps my terseness has obscured my point -- together with my general resistance to diving into this thread. Those holding theological positions in the public arena are welcome to them in so far as they can provide cumulative case arguments that take into consideration evidence presented, and scientific positions are in the same position. What scientific positions cannot do is pretend that they do not depend on faith in their first principles so that they can de jure rule out all theological claims. They must meet those claims de facto, without any privileging. The other problem I have is saying "any" fill in the blank (in your quote above, "any theology".) I see no reason to say that any and all theological claims are in the same boat, any more than any claims at all, scientific or otherwise. There may be some theological claims that are much better than others. We may need to rule some theological claims irrational and or false, even as we do the same with scientific claims, everyday claims, etc.
Also, I note with regard to my statements above, that I have at least one obvious, universal reason for saying first principles are rational: it is impossible to operate without first principles. If we must always know something to know something else (perhaps it is better to say I must know one thing implicitly to know another explicitly), then I'm going to have to be given some very convincing arguments to accept a skeptical attitude. I have reasons for suspecting, in fact, that skepticism is self-referentially incoherent. "I know nothing other than the fact that I know nothing." Really, and how would you know that? And so forth.
|
|
My answer doesn't have to be none, indeed, there is no reason why my answer should be none. All I need is to have a probable, cumulative case argument that does the (arguably) best job of explaining the evidence, and does a good job of accounting for possible objections and undermining. There is no need for skepticism any more than there is a need for the rejection of faith. It is not irrational to hold first principles for which one has good reasons.
Except that remains the prima facie case for the rejection of faith; the because it is predicated on a First Cause principle it can have no validity or legitimacy.
Edit: Perhaps my terseness has obscured my point -- together with my general resistance to diving into this thread. Those holding theological positions in the public arena are welcome to them in so far as they can provide cumulative case arguments that take into consideration evidence presented, and scientific positions are in the same position. What scientific positions cannot do is pretend that they do not depend on faith in their first principles so that they can de jure rule out all theological claims. They must meet those claims de facto, without any privileging.
That is the point I am trying to make as well, along with demonstrating how and why a lack of good faith causes the problems in the first place.
It is a contest of:"Prove it!"
"You prove it!"
"I do not have to prove it, it is self-obvious to anyone looking at it!"
"No it isn't, mine is!"
"Prove it!"
Ad infinitum, ad nauseam, the pigs were indistinguishable from the men.
So, we may have somewhat mistaken each other, Sam. If I understand the situation correctly, "scientistic" arguments or positions that you are objecting to have not come to terms with the necessity of first principles, or the circularity that is inherent in a strict dependence on sense perception, while rejecting all other epistemic modes. Thomas Reid is my hero here. Some of those old guys actually had put some serious thought into their philosophy. A more recent chap is William Alston.
You are all just figments of my imagination.
You are all just fig newtons of my imagination.
There, fixed it for you, no charge.
|
|
So, we may have somewhat mistaken each other, Sam.
Quite possibly. And easily, as I was using a highly rhetorical phrasing to make my point.
If I understand the situation correctly, "scientistic" arguments or positions that you are objecting to have not come to terms with the necessity of first principles, or the circularity that is inherent in a strict dependence on sense perception, while rejecting all other epistemic modes. Thomas Reid is my hero here. Some of those old guys actually had put some serious thought into their philosophy. A more recent chap is William Alston.
"Pure" science it is sense perception.
Pure philosophy is general principles.Theology it is divinity.
Ultimately all rely on an initial act of faith.
As for a hero, I go with Harry Turtledove, who had a character in the Videssos series roll out the quip "while heterodoxy is my neighbor's doxy, orthodoxy is mine". (Or close to that.)
Until you have fresh figs, which are awesome!
And that quote you got from Turtledove actually infuriates me! But there's a long story there, involving Bishop Warburton, the Church of England, and my ongoing war against lazy pluralisms and relativisms.
Edit: Is the Videssos series the one that is a fantasy version of the Byzantine empire?
|
|
Until you have fresh figs, which are awesome!
And that quote you got from Turtledove actually infuriates me! But there's a long story there, involving Bishop Warburton, the Church of England, and my ongoing war against lazy pluralisms and relativisms.
Edit: Is the Videssos series the one that is a fantasy version of the Byzantine empire?
Yes it is, the first series, The Misplaced Legion. I forget which book in the series though.