[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Quote

Besides, temporary is often permanent

That's as convoluted as George Bush saying, "When I say war, I really mean peace."

All antibiotics are temporary. Does that mean they don't cure things? Short of surgery, just about everything in medicine is temporary. Claiming that a placebo's effect is "temporary" and therefore without merit doesn't make any sense. How about if a doctor uses a placebo to reduce a fever? Is that useful, or not?

Quote

Next time I a seriously ill, I am going to a physician - I wish you well with your faith healers.

Yes, you and all of your friends can rack up trillions of dollars in unnecessary medical visits so that our economy can go down the toilet. If we show really little faith in ourselves, all countries can become Iceland.

Antibiotics are over the counter in Mexico. They're prescription here in the U.S. because people believe in the magic healing power of doctors. Long lines of people every flu season going to see a doctor because their kid has the sniffles, so the doctor can say a benediction for them. Almost as long lines of people keeping the elderly alive but sedated for an extra few months, so that they can have a clear conscience when mom or dad passes on. Does that sound like the job for a doctor to you, or a priest?

If I believe that my body will take care of most of my illnesses without outside help, and if I believe that long term fatal illnesses should be allowed to take their course rather than spend hundreds of thousands per case trying to treat them, I guess that makes me a faith healer or something. Personally, I think it's the people who think that visiting a doctor will make them better that are engaging in faith healing.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 31 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Quote

start smaller, winston... first start by asking whether or not non-material things even exist... that's what started this, imo... the weight of importance ascribed to this existence is at the root of the whole thing... what do you think?

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

The laws of the physical world are pretty much useless without some metaphysical laws; for instance, the law of non-contradiction. At any given time and in a single context, both "A" and "not A" cannot be true. If you don't hold to that one, there's not really much point in having a zillion-page "evolution v. creationism" thread.

You don't have to debate or discuss them, and maybe it's a silly exercise, but you do have accept them to move onto the empirically-based debates.

Maybe it is just me but I have trouble calling these "laws" - principles seems a better description because they seem (again to me) as self-evident. I can grasp the significance of these principles to logic and philosophy - but I am unsure about their value outside that realm as at the heart it appears all that can be done is to argue an opinion about those things which cannot be verified.

i don't mean this as criticism, but have you thought deeply on just *why* they seem "self-evident" to you? take the law of non-contradiction... isn't it self-evident to you *because* it's a law?... lobowolf answered your concern about their value outside of logic and philosophy - you really can't discuss or debate materially until the question of abstracts is settled

mikeh, on Feb 3 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

Personally, having read Pinker in particular, and having read of the morality studies described by Dawkins, the argument in favour of morality being an adaptive trait seems very strong. 'Right', in the sense that it is beyond doubt? No... but 'right' in the sense of plausible and avoiding the need to invoke the unprovable... yes.

i'd like to know more about your view on this (without actually having to read pinker)... how would morality being an adaptive state work? would it be consensus-based?

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Feb 3 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

is morality and related concepts sufficiently explained by evolutionary psychology?

I haven't read Lewis so I may be wrong about this, but isn't it so that while a scientist hopes to explain morality in the same sense as he hopes to explain other phenomena, the theologist hopes to justify either morality in general, or a particular moral codex, depending on the theological school he belongs to? For the latter it doesn't make much sense to apply a scientific theory. Applying religion apparently makes sense to most people, though.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Feb 3 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 3 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

is morality and related concepts sufficiently explained by evolutionary psychology?

I haven't read Lewis so I may be wrong about this, but isn't it so that while a scientist hopes to explain morality in the same sense as he hopes to explain other phenomena, the theologist hopes to justify either morality in general, or a particular moral codex, depending on the theological school he belongs to? For the latter it doesn't make much sense to apply a scientific theory. Applying religion apparently makes sense to most people, though.

hmmm... i don't think so, helene... i think most theists are of the opinion that morality can be accounted for from within their worldview (justified maybe, accounted for surely)

[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Feb 3 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

hmmm... i don't think so, helene... i think most theists are of the opinion that morality can be accounted for from within their worldview

I agree that this is the case; however, I do believe that most theists are wrong about that.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 3 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 3 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

Personally, having read Pinker in particular, and having read of the morality studies described by Dawkins, the argument in favour of morality being an adaptive trait seems very strong. 'Right', in the sense that it is beyond doubt? No... but 'right' in the sense of plausible and avoiding the need to invoke the unprovable... yes.

i'd like to know more about your view on this (without actually having to read pinker)... how would morality being an adaptive state work? would it be consensus-based?

You should read Pinker, or some of the other writers in the area.. I like Pinker because he writes in a very lucid fashion. The fact that he is Canadian is merely a coincidence

I cannot do him justice, especially as I did not take notes as I went, read him several months ago (the last book of his that I read) and do not have access to that book as I write.

I am not trying to duck the issue, but if you are genuinely looking for knowledge.. have an open mind.. then read his books. It seems to me, from the tenor of some of our 'exchanges' that the odds are high that anything I say will merely trigger a defensive and negative reaction.

As for Lewis' ideas.. they are well written, as I thing anyone would agree, but they simply do not stand up to critical analysis, as far as I am concerned.

Take a look at his arguments for the existence of a Moral Law as being a decider between conflicting instincts. Even if you find that to be attractive, imagine being called upon to debate that point, as happens in debating societies... I suspect it wouldn't take long for you to realize where there are enormous gaps and errors in his reasoning.

One of these, and by no means the only, is in his assumption that the enemies he and England fought in the World Wars really knew, deep down, that they were in the wrong. He had to hold to that, contrary to a significant body of evidence that suggests that most of the population of the opposing countries, at least for a long while, felt that they were fighting the good fight. Why? Because the Moral Law, being externally imposed, has to be the same for all. And surely the Moral Law couldn't compell nations to go to all-out war, resulting in the death of millions?

Since his side won, and since he was sure, from the Moral voice inside him, that his side had been morally right (and I agree that his side was, but my reasons are somewhat different, I suspect)... the other side was in the wrong... and had to know it. This is silly... any student of any major war will appreciate that almost invariably both sides believe that their cause is just. Heck, we just saw a thread deleted for, essentially, that very reason... feelings were so inflamed, amongst a small but vociferous number of posters, that the thread was censored. Who hears the Moral Law in the middle east? Please note that I am NOT trying to argue the Gaza issue.. I am pointing out a fallacy in Lewis' argument that one side to a conflict will 'know' that it is acting immorally.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Feb 4 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

One of these, and by no means the only, is in his assumption that the enemies he and England fought in the World Wars really knew, deep down, that they were in the wrong. He had to hold to that, contrary to a significant body of evidence that suggests that most of the population of the opposing countries, at least for a long while, felt that they were fighting the good fight.

I suppose you are right about this "significant body of evidence". But based on introspection I would say the opposite. I used to believe in certain ridicolous political ideas, and today I think that, at least sometimes, I was aware that I was wrong back then.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

Thanks for asking my view. I tried to point out that a discussion where one argues from a scientific basis and the other from a metaphysical basis seems bound to lead to only frustration. From the quotes I posted, there has long been a conflict between the two schools of thought.

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

My problem is when the scientific 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is borrowed and utilized as a metaphysical Law of Entropy - IMO it cannot be both. Also, IMO, as I stated before, it appears the metaphysical utilizes a gross generalization of entropy and then claims that as a general law.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

would you agree that whether serves a useful purpose or not, in your opinion, it can still be a 'law'? the point isn't, in any case, the usefulness we might ascribe to 'laws', it's whether or not they even exist

you can call the discussion of such things equivalent to high school debates if you want, but there are many who even have a year or twenty of college who think about such things

Jimmy,

When I say high school debate rule I don't mean sophomoric - I mean simplistic in the sense of something self-evident.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 3 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

hmmm... i don't think so, helene... i think most theists are of the opinion that morality can be accounted for from within their worldview

I agree that this is the case; however, I do believe that most theists are wrong about that.

wrong about what?

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

Thanks for asking my view. I tried to point out that a discussion where one argues from a scientific basis and the other from a metaphysical basis seems bound to lead to only frustration. From the quotes I posted, there has long been a conflict between the two schools of thought.

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

My problem is when the scientific 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is borrowed and utilized as a metaphysical Law of Entropy - IMO it cannot be both. Also, IMO, as I stated before, it appears the metaphysical utilizes a gross generalization of entropy and then claims that as a general law.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

would you agree that whether serves a useful purpose or not, in your opinion, it can still be a 'law'? the point isn't, in any case, the usefulness we might ascribe to 'laws', it's whether or not they even exist

you can call the discussion of such things equivalent to high school debates if you want, but there are many who even have a year or twenty of college who think about such things

Jimmy,

When I say high school debate rule I don't mean sophomoric - I mean simplistic in the sense of something self-evident.

again, winston - why do you think they are self-evident?

[Winstonm]

Quote

again, winston - why do you think they are self-evident?

Jimmy,

I don't know them all but from what I have read they seem to be stating the obvious. For example, the Law of Identity, A=A. This doesn't compute in my brain as being on the same "law" plane as the law of gravity that allows people in tiny metal capsules to be shot on top of rockets into orbits around the Earth.


I am not being facetious here, but just trying to let you know how my brain views the discrepancy. Say Law of Gravity and I see Neil Armstrong on the moon. But mention Law of Identity and I see Big Bird holding two side-by-side pictures of identical apples.

That doesn't mean metaphysics is Sesame Street - that means my understanding makes an unflattering comparison of the two. I welcome enlightenment.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:41 AM, said:

For example, the Law of Identity, A=A.

There is no "law" of identity. It's an axiom and it's called reflectiveness (the axiom of identity tells you that there are no two distinct sets that consist of the same elements). IOW it is just something we have decided to be true. It doesn't tell us anything about the real world (except in the sense that human behavior, including human axiom making, is something that goes on in the real world).

[luke warm]

laws, in the sense i'm speaking, are axioms... that's what i was trying to say to winston... an axiom *is* a self-evident law... so when you saw the 'law' of identity is the 'axiom' of identity, you're saying the same thing... the important thing is, they are not material and they exist and *that* is important... the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

[mikeh]

Jimmy, you got upset with me on an earlier post in which I said that theists and atheists used the same words but spoke a different language (altho when you quoted me, you truncated my sentence, which served to distort what I had written).

But your posts about self-evident laws is an example of what I was saying.

To me, and I think to helene and winston, there is a fundamental difference between an axiom and a law.

I refreshed my memory by recourse to wikipedia, and I commend the same to you.

At the risk of over-simplification, an axiom is something that we postulate to be true, and upon which we build a description of the universe (whether the universe we observe or some hypothetical different realm). The laws are then determined (usually, as far as I can tell) by observation and then formalization.. with the mathematical expression of the laws being contingent upon the formal method that is founded on the axioms.

It appears to us self evident that A=A.

Neither the law of gravity nor the 2nd law of thermodynamics, to cite two 'laws' referenced in this thread, appear, as far as I know, to be self-evident to anyone.

To the extent that you intend to refer to both axioms and laws as the same concept, you are using the same words as, for example, I and winston and helene (I hope I am not being too presumptuous in referring to them) but you are speaking a different language.

Indeed, that is a common problem, as I see it, in most of the posts where you and I, or you and richard, or you and winstom, etc, disagree. You use the same words, more of less, but they mean something different to you than to us. So when you read what I have to say, I suspect that you either do not grasp my meaning or you wilfully respond as if you don't.. either would present the same way to an observer

BTW, may I suggest something? When a theist posted here a suggestion that I, as an atheist, read a work by Lewis, I did so. I have suggested you read a work by Pinker (Say: How the Mind Works). I read a theist book... Pinker's book is not even an atheist book... I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but his book is not written to espouse any opinion in that arena... but it does deal with morality, in part, since he deals with current views (in the scientific community) of what makes us act the way we do.

Admittedly, Pinker's books are much longer than Lewis' Mere Christianity and may be harder slogging, since they are based on science and data, but he is a very lucid writer. So why not try it? Or are you too closed minded to risk contamination by information that contradicts your preferred world view?

I fear the latter, but hope for the former.. and would be delighted to hear from you some cogent observations after you have read the book.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Feb 5 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

To the extent that you intend to refer to both axioms and laws as the same concept, you are using the same words as, for example, I and winston and helene (I hope I am not being too presumptuous in referring to them) but you are speaking a different language.

Indeed, that is a common problem, as I see it, in most of the posts where you and I, or you and richard, or you and winstom, etc, disagree. You use the same words, more of less, but they mean something different to you than to us. So when you read what I have to say, I suspect that you either do not grasp my meaning or you wilfully respond as if you don't.. either would present the same way to an observer

i was just going by the two definitions commonly used:

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

so i take axiom and law to be nearly synonymous... certainly i don't want to argue over semantics, though... it's just that when winston used "self-evident" i wanted to point out that the self-evidence of the law of non-contradiction, for example, is so because it *is* a law... it seemed redundant to me

Quote

BTW, may I suggest something? When a theist posted here a suggestion that I, as an atheist, read a work by Lewis, I did so. I have suggested you read a work by Pinker (Say: How the Mind Works). I read a theist book... Pinker's book is not even an atheist book... I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but his book is not written to espouse any opinion in that arena... but it does deal with morality, in part, since he deals with current views (in the scientific community) of what makes us act the way we do.

Admittedly, Pinker's books are much longer than Lewis' Mere Christianity and may be harder slogging, since they are based on science and data, but he is a very lucid writer. So why not try it? Or are you too closed minded to risk contamination by information that contradicts your preferred world view?

I fear the latter, but hope for the former.. and would be delighted to hear from you some cogent observations after you have read the book.

i do give you credit for reading, at least enough to get the gist of it, mere christianity... i wish i could promise that i'd do the same re: pinker, but i hardly think that my failure to do so constitutes close mindedness... some things i do irritate you, and some things you do irritate me... this is an example of a large body of your posts where you jump to a conclusion of your choosing based on actions (or inactions) of others... how would you like it if i recommended to you plantinga's 3 volume set on epistemology and then called you a narrow minded bigot if you couldn't find the time (or were merely disinterested in reading it) to read it?

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

deny what?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

deny what?

Are you serious?

(Discussion about apples)
Post about apples
Post about apples
Post about apples
Lukewarm: I am going to get one out of the fruit basket.
PassedOut: You can get one out of the cupboard instead.
Lukewarm: Get what out of the cupboard?

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

deny what?

Are you serious?

(Discussion about apples)
Post about apples
Post about apples
Post about apples
Lukewarm: I am going to get one out of the fruit basket.
PassedOut: You can get one out of the cupboard instead.
Lukewarm: Get what out of the cupboard?

we were, i thought, talking about laws (or abstracts, or metaphysical entities)... he said i deny they exist (i suppose that's what he's saying, which is why i asked for clarification) if that's so, quote something i said to back that up... and no josh, making up apples, baskets, and cupboards doesn't count

[jdonn]

Am I really seeing this?

You used a pronoun.
He referred to the same pronoun.
You asked him what the pronoun referred to.

Uh, you used it first?

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Feb 5 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

Jimmy, you got upset with me on an earlier post in which I said that theists and atheists used the same words but spoke a different language (altho when you quoted me, you truncated my sentence, which served to distort what I had written).

But your posts about self-evident laws is an example of what I was saying.

To me, and I think to helene and winston, there is a fundamental difference between an axiom and a law.

I refreshed my memory by recourse to wikipedia, and I commend the same to you.

At the risk of over-simplification, an axiom is something that we postulate to be true, and upon which we build a description of the universe (whether the universe we observe or some hypothetical different realm). The laws are then determined (usually, as far as I can tell) by observation and then formalization.. with the mathematical expression of the laws being contingent upon the formal method that is founded on the axioms.

It appears to us self evident that A=A.

Neither the law of gravity nor the 2nd law of thermodynamics, to cite two 'laws' referenced in this thread, appear, as far as I know, to be self-evident to anyone.

To the extent that you intend to refer to both axioms and laws as the same concept, you are using the same words as, for example, I and winston and helene (I hope I am not being too presumptuous in referring to them) but you are speaking a different language.

Indeed, that is a common problem, as I see it, in most of the posts where you and I, or you and richard, or you and winstom, etc, disagree. You use the same words, more of less, but they mean something different to you than to us. So when you read what I have to say, I suspect that you either do not grasp my meaning or you wilfully respond as if you don't.. either would present the same way to an observer

BTW, may I suggest something? When a theist posted here a suggestion that I, as an atheist, read a work by Lewis, I did so. I have suggested you read a work by Pinker (Say: How the Mind Works). I read a theist book... Pinker's book is not even an atheist book... I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but his book is not written to espouse any opinion in that arena... but it does deal with morality, in part, since he deals with current views (in the scientific community) of what makes us act the way we do.

Admittedly, Pinker's books are much longer than Lewis' Mere Christianity and may be harder slogging, since they are based on science and data, but he is a very lucid writer. So why not try it? Or are you too closed minded to risk contamination by information that contradicts your preferred world view?

I fear the latter, but hope for the former.. and would be delighted to hear from you some cogent observations after you have read the book.

Mike,

You can speak for me anytime - as long as I don't get billed.

I think your post sums up nicely what I have been trying to say. It is not that anyone clearly demeans (or at least means to do so) metaphysics but it is difficult to debate or even have a conversation when one side is attempting to explain the physical processes that cause colors in the sky while the other side is attempting to quantify the meaning of why we see beauty of the sky - and each side cannot understand the confusion because the language used is similar.

It is like the evolutionary debate. For many of us who accept evolution as the best current explanation, the concept of a god-being who kick-started the whole process is mute: I have no problem in an argument either way as it is only non-provable speculation. But when you add a certain type of Christianity into the mix (usually evangelical), you now have to cope with the concept of original sin. Original sin is the aspect of Christianity that requires a sacrificial Christ to forgive that sinful bloodline. It appears to me that without the concept of original sin the argument fails for a need of a Christ who dies on a cross to forgive that sin.

If I understand the theology correctly, the original sin concept when confronted by the concept of evolution would create a powerful amount of cognitive dissonance .

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

Am I really seeing this?

You used a pronoun.
He referred to the same pronoun.
You asked him what the pronoun referred to.

Uh, you used it first?

here's my original post

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

laws, in the sense i'm speaking, are axioms... that's what i was trying to say to winston... an axiom *is* a self-evident law... so when you saw the 'law' of identity is the 'axiom' of identity, you're saying the same thing... the important thing is, they are not material and they exist and *that* is important... the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

and this is his entire post

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

if he is saying what he *appears* to be saying, i challenge him to show me where i made such a denial... but if on the off chance i'm reading it incorrectly, i simply asked for clarification... why does it bother you, anyway?