Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:37
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mike, this:
In this particular place: A person being in several places at once without actually travelling. Yeah, right, and it's obviously a particularly Catholic trait, for reasons untold. And monkeys might fly out of my ass
Is not an argument at all.
Iván
Of course it's an *argument*. It doesn't contain any pieces of factual evidence, and it contains some added ridicule and sarcasm. The refutation of this miracle claim happened way before that - the positive evidence for it, which you presented, is simply not convincing. Have a look at my reply to Dean, where I explain why miracles can never be proven by historical data. So, at this point I'm really just pointing out further inconsistencies.
I also remember your personal miracle story ... I may have made this comment before, in essence it's: You're a Catholic, but your miracle story is more about dead people communicating with living people - think Psychics, Mediums, Premonitions etc.. Many Catholics would call these things black magic, and those believing in it heretics. Yet you use it to bolster your case for Catholicism. By the same reasoning, I don't follow this weird reasining of someone supposedly being in several places at once somehow being a criteria for making this person a Catholic saint.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:40
Dean wrote:
If the catholic church wants to elevate individuals to sainthood in recognition for good deeds then I don't have issue with that - in the secular world honorifics are given to people in recognition for good works in every walk of life. If Martin de Porres or Mother Teressa did good work then by all means honour them (and although I tend to side with Hitchens on Mother Teressa's attitude to birth-control in the third world, I do accept she did good).
What good did she do exactly? Many think that her odd beliefs not withstanding, she took care of poor, dying people. Yeah, she did, but she also refused to give them pain medication. The good old Catholic idea that suffering brings us closer to Christ ...
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:42
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You can quote scientists - there's nothing wrong with that. When you quote medical doctors commenting on what's a miracle and what isn't, then it gets ridiculous. Sure, I know, they're only determining that no medical cause is found. But that's a non-issue - nobody contests that in the first place.
False
You need 5 different diagnosis, 100% coincident
The Holy Office can (an always does) ask for any scientific expert opinion, EVEN FROM ATHEISTS, there's no limit for this.
At the end after 5 diagnosis (mandatory), many more optional, many witness, many expert declarations, a process that can take decades (in the best of cases), THE POPE BY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT declares if we are before a miracle.
Iván
You are such a jerk. WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DIAGNOSIS "WE DON'T KNOW".
We have a problem with getting from "we don't know" to "it's a miracle". It is bunk. You object - ok, it's carefully controlled bunk. It still doesn't matter how many doctors conclude "we don't know", it doesn't matter how many decades they (at the Vatican) ponder the question of whether it was a miracle, and all they know is that they don't know how the patient got cured. And no, it doesn't matter either whether the f**king pedophile-protecting pope farts an official document out of his blessed poop-hole. NONE OF THIS MATTERS TO ANYONE BUT DEVOUT CATHOLICS.
BTW: I'm not angry at all, I'm amused.
There is a problem getting from if one believes in the Catholic Church because one's parents believe in the Catholic Church, then that belief is false.
Your comment about the pope is equally fallacious. It has nothing to do with the ability to identify miracles.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 11 2010 at 12:47
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
If the catholic church wants to elevate individuals to sainthood in recognition for good deeds then I don't have issue with that - in the secular world honorifics are given to people in recognition for good works in every walk of life. If Martin de Porres or Mother Teressa did good work then by all means honour them (and although I tend to side with Hitchens on Mother Teressa's attitude to birth-control in the third world, I do accept she did good).
What good did she do exactly? Many think that her odd beliefs not withstanding, she took care of poor, dying people. Yeah, she did, but she also refused to give them pain medication. The good old Catholic idea that suffering brings us closer to Christ ...
Ah, you got me - I don't know - I was giving her the benefit of the doubt because of the multitude of secular honours she was awarded, not because I have an indepth knowledge of her works and deeds.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:03
stonebeard wrote:
Hallucinations often have a religious subtext, and there are still a lot of things about the brain we don't understand. It's a precarious organ, and changing the chemical compositions in it just a little bit can be the difference in sanity and insanity, night and day, hallucination and reality. I doubt most atheists here at least will say "X event positively did not happen" but are careful to not when acknowledging to possibility of an extraordinary event, the danger that people will take their admission and run with it. "The atheist/scientist told me something unexplainable happened to me. Jesus walks among us now!"
Although they more often do not have a religious subtext.
I'm not sure what kind of hallucinations you mean but visual hallucinations are rare in psychotic illness alone. They are more closely associated with organic brain disorders and intoxication/withdrawal states (as you say).
If by insanity you are referring to schizophrenia, a term that was used earlier in this thread in relation to relgious people... 3 of the first rank symptoms of schizophrenia are types of auditory hallucinations, ie not ''visions''. If you mean depressive illness, hallucinations aren't one of the core symptoms here although they do account for one of the psychotic features of the illness (including demons and the Devil, admittedly).
However, some apparently psychotic features may be normal within the person's culture, and that includes the appearance of divine entities, hearing the voice of God, holding seemingly false beliefs. Culture is a key element when diagnosing mental illness.
What we consider to be abnormal behaviour is subjective. Even with a universal condition like schizophrenia, the individual culture shapes how people experience and respond to the illness.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:15
Textbook wrote:
*snip*
This brings us to one of the problems of religion that I have not seen addressed in this thread so far- self admiration. Now a lot of religious people will go on about how they are sinners and wretches and so on but it's always seemed disingenuous to me- down at the core there's a smug, self-congratulatory core because they are "believers" and are "saved". They're "winners" and are above people who don't believe. This leads to the aggrandising of their own preferences and beliefs in general and all sorts of other unpleasantness.
Well, it seems to me that some of the atheists here don't value cultural variety. Look at the frequent invocation of science as some arbiter of all disputes and a thing against which religious people's beliefs should be judged. Mike already alluded to the supposed superiority of atheists and the notion that atheists were more evolved, although if I remember correctly he seemed to backtrack on the latter. Mike frequently claims that his ideas are more centred on logic and reason. That may or may not be true, but it is false to say so.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:22
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument.
You have been contradicting me all the time, so please tell me why both cases are not exact?
In both cases the Church or the Law, has to take a decision without scientific evidence or the certitude of anything, but you can live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence but not with a Church deciding something is a miracle.
Iván
I think that's putting words in my mouth - I never said I could live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence, nor would I ever say that. That's not what any of this is about anyway. Sometimes your conclusions are just too bizarre to give credence to anything.
Just because a jury can convict someone on scant evidence and inconclusive scientific results it has absolutely nothing to do with the Church assuming that since science cannot produce an irrefutable explanation for a paranormal event then it must be a miracle. The two are not parallel or similar in any way. Stating that one is analogous of the other is a specious argument - it sounds right but it isn't.
A few pages ago I commented on the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation. However, since science cannot settle all disputes, perhaps miracles, like courts of law, are one of those disputes.
I can't really accept that - using that line of reasoning any question that science has yet to find an answer to would automatically fall under the remit of the Miracle Committee, and that would be a terrible idea. Using that logic we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
Now who's using a fallacious argument? I'm surprised, considering your avatar
Modern scholars tend to avoid the term Dark Ages because of its negative and inaccurate connotations, for example the Early Middle Ages incorporated the Islamic Golden Age.
There seems to be an implication here that modern society is better than older or other societies. That's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:34
seventhsojourn wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Hallucinations often have a religious subtext, and there are still a lot of things about the brain we don't understand. It's a precarious organ, and changing the chemical compositions in it just a little bit can be the difference in sanity and insanity, night and day, hallucination and reality. I doubt most atheists here at least will say "X event positively did not happen" but are careful to not when acknowledging to possibility of an extraordinary event, the danger that people will take their admission and run with it. "The atheist/scientist told me something unexplainable happened to me. Jesus walks among us now!"
Although they more often do not have a religious subtext.
I'm not sure what kind of hallucinations you mean but visual hallucinations are rare in psychotic illness alone. They are more closely associated with organic brain disorders and intoxication/withdrawal states (as you say).
If by insanity you are referring to schizophrenia, a term that was used earlier in this thread in relation to relgious people... 3 of the first rank symptoms of schizophrenia are types of auditory hallucinations, ie not ''visions''. If you mean depressive illness, hallucinations aren't one of the core symptoms here although they do account for one of the psychotic features of the illness (including demons and the Devil, admittedly).
However, some apparently psychotic features may be normal within the person's culture, and that includes the appearance of divine entities, hearing the voice of God, holding seemingly false beliefs. Culture is a key element when diagnosing mental illness.
What we consider to be abnormal behaviour is subjective. Even with a universal condition like schizophrenia, the individual culture shapes how people experience and respond to the illness.
I was mostly addressing hallucinations not from illness, though I suppose those count, too, but others from psychoactive chemicals, sleep deprivation, that kind of thing. In many primitive cultures, ingesting psychoactive plants and doing extreme things like walkabouts can result in hallucination, and depending on the memories and personality of the person, as well as their culture--whether is is highly religious in expectation or punishment or whatever, they can have visions taking on a spiritual or religious nature, or have an overwhelming presence of God in them. That, I believe, can account for a lot of extraordinary things in less scientific times.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:43
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
If the catholic church wants to elevate individuals to sainthood in recognition for good deeds then I don't have issue with that - in the secular world honorifics are given to people in recognition for good works in every walk of life. If Martin de Porres or Mother Teressa did good work then by all means honour them (and although I tend to side with Hitchens on Mother Teressa's attitude to birth-control in the third world, I do accept she did good).
What good did she do exactly? Many think that her odd beliefs not withstanding, she took care of poor, dying people. Yeah, she did, but she also refused to give them pain medication. The good old Catholic idea that suffering brings us closer to Christ ...
Ah, you got me - I don't know - I was giving her the benefit of the doubt because of the multitude of secular honours she was awarded, not because I have an indepth knowledge of her works and deeds.
Well, I wouldn't say that she was all bad - in some way, her intentions might have been well. Still, I think that there was a lot of hype, and even today her name has become somewhat synonymous with the "good samaritan".
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 11 2010 at 13:53
seventhsojourn wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You can quote scientists - there's nothing wrong with that. When you quote medical doctors commenting on what's a miracle and what isn't, then it gets ridiculous. Sure, I know, they're only determining that no medical cause is found. But that's a non-issue - nobody contests that in the first place.
False
You need 5 different diagnosis, 100% coincident
The Holy Office can (an always does) ask for any scientific expert opinion, EVEN FROM ATHEISTS, there's no limit for this.
At the end after 5 diagnosis (mandatory), many more optional, many witness, many expert declarations, a process that can take decades (in the best of cases), THE POPE BY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT declares if we are before a miracle.
Iván
You are such a jerk. WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DIAGNOSIS "WE DON'T KNOW".
We have a problem with getting from "we don't know" to "it's a miracle". It is bunk. You object - ok, it's carefully controlled bunk. It still doesn't matter how many doctors conclude "we don't know", it doesn't matter how many decades they (at the Vatican) ponder the question of whether it was a miracle, and all they know is that they don't know how the patient got cured. And no, it doesn't matter either whether the f**king pedophile-protecting pope farts an official document out of his blessed poop-hole. NONE OF THIS MATTERS TO ANYONE BUT DEVOUT CATHOLICS.
BTW: I'm not angry at all, I'm amused.
There is a problem getting from if one believes in the Catholic Church because one's parents believe in the Catholic Church, then that belief is false.
Your comment about the pope is equally fallacious. It has nothing to do with the ability to identify miracles.
The comment would be fallacious if I was using it as the basis for a claim. But I'm simply criticising the man - and all the pomp and hype around him.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 11 2010 at 13:56
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:00
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Well no. Both cases are not exact at all - that's why the comparison is fallacious. However, since you well never "get this" there is no point continuing this line of argument.
You have been contradicting me all the time, so please tell me why both cases are not exact?
In both cases the Church or the Law, has to take a decision without scientific evidence or the certitude of anything, but you can live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence but not with a Church deciding something is a miracle.
Iván
I think that's putting words in my mouth - I never said I could live with a person being sent to jail with no evidence, nor would I ever say that. That's not what any of this is about anyway. Sometimes your conclusions are just too bizarre to give credence to anything.
Just because a jury can convict someone on scant evidence and inconclusive scientific results it has absolutely nothing to do with the Church assuming that since science cannot produce an irrefutable explanation for a paranormal event then it must be a miracle. The two are not parallel or similar in any way. Stating that one is analogous of the other is a specious argument - it sounds right but it isn't.
A few pages ago I commented on the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation. However, since science cannot settle all disputes, perhaps miracles, like courts of law, are one of those disputes.
I can't really accept that - using that line of reasoning any question that science has yet to find an answer to would automatically fall under the remit of the Miracle Committee, and that would be a terrible idea. Using that logic we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
Now who's using a fallacious argument? I'm surprised, considering your avatar
Modern scholars tend to avoid the term Dark Ages because of its negative and inaccurate connotations, for example the Early Middle Ages incorporated the Islamic Golden Age.
There seems to be an implication here that modern society is better than older or other societies. That's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
How is this argument fallacious? I grant you it is facetious and even flippant to some extent, but if we had continued to dispense with science for explanations of the unexplanable and rely solely on "the church" then the Rennaissance and the Age of Enlightenment would never have occurred - that is not a fallacy since evidence of the church suppressing and forbidding scientific investigation that would contradict scripture are well documented.
The Dark Ages are so called because we know little of what happened during that period, mainly I would add, because the only scholarly scribes were in the employ of the church and were only involved in transcribing scripture not documenting history. It was the direct consequence of the most powerful establishment in Europe that created this lack of information. That the Islamic Golden Age occurred at the same time and eclipsed everything that happened in "the West" is an indictment against that establishment (and why there were no African priests and monks during that period even though there had been three African Popes prior to that).
My avatar is a good example of why calling them the Dark Ages in the West is perfectly correct and not politically incorrect - he was undoubtedly a great man, Albion's first true king perhaps, and certainly a renowned scholar, but all of the written works he is associated with are in relation to the christian religion and nothing else. The "technology" and "history" that was lost during that period is incalculable and immeasurable - we know more of the Roman, Greek and Egyptian histories than we do of the Saxon Kings and the Iron Age and we know more of the Popes of Rome than we do of the European Kings of the same period - that is not philosophy that is science.
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:09
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean, you'e assuming that:
1.- All testimonies are fake
2.- Everything s a fraud
With no evidence.
Mike, this:
In this particular place: A person being in several places at once without actually travelling. Yeah, right, and it's obviously a particularly Catholic trait, for reasons untold. And monkeys might fly out of my ass
Is not an argument at all.
Iván
I am REALLY athiest and hate the idea of saints but Ivan is right, you all are playing the part of a bigot. Please calm down and discuss this like rational people but dont make all of us athiests look like angry teenagers.
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:17
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
A few pages ago I commented on the atheist notion that it's somehow logical to assume that all miracles have a scientific explanation. However, since science cannot settle all disputes, perhaps miracles, like courts of law, are one of those disputes.
Science is the best tool we have. I'm not saying that because I'm an atheist and happen to "like" science and "dislike" religion - it's because science has a proven track record of success, and religion has a proven track record of failure. If you look back on history, you'll find that on countless issues science has revealed that the initial religious assumption was incorrect.
The underlying problem is that religion has zero basis in reality. Take any religious argument you like and trace it back to it's foundation, and you'll find scripture and/or historic miracle claims. For example: The bible is true because of the miracles jesus performed - which we know about through the bible. It's all circular, whereas science is based on the rules of the natural world which we all can examine and validate. It's not "Darwinism", it's "Evolution" - Darwin happened to be the first person to "connect the dots", but doesn't mean we have to take his or anyone else's word for it, we can verify it independently.
The bottom line: Science is the best tool we have. Whatever cannot be settled using something like the scientific process, cannot be settled by any other means except by means of faith - which cannot be verified at all and thus does not really settle anything.
Science is one tool, saying it's ''the best'' is ultimately subjective.
Just because religious assumptions are revealed to be incorrect, it doesn't follow that there is no God.
Stephen Hawking has said that ''Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.'' If that's true, then the universe simply exists, it's not the reason why it or we exist(s).
There was nothing and then there was something. How can Hawking assume that we got something from nothing? And how is that logical?
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:20
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The comment would be fallacious if I was using it as the basis for a claim. But I'm simply criticising the man - and all the pomp and hype around him.
Exactly, it's a straw man argument, that you're so fond of accusing others of using. You are attacking the pope, not the Church's process for the identification of miracles.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:33
seventhsojourn wrote:
Science is one tool, saying it's ''the best'' is ultimately subjective.
What are the other tools if not science? And how should we trust them?
seventhsojourn wrote:
There was nothing and then there was something. How can Hawking assume that we got something from nothing? And how is that logical?
Well we have something, that's basically assured. It either came from
something or nothing. While it's hard to make sense of which is the logical choice,
it seems to me that if we don't eventually choose nothing, then we have
an infinite regress of something, which I guess has appeased the
religious and followers of the ontological argument in the past, and I
suppose it sates the intellect of someone who suppresses their cognitive
dissonance enough. In this case, it's a matter of making the best
choice with the current knowledge of how the universe works that we
have. It may not be objectively right or wrong, but it's the best we can
do. And on this point I'll let the authorities on the subject
(astrophysics, chemistry, hard sciences) make the better decision, since
they have the most knowledge on the subject. Remember, an appeal to
authority is often a good thing, and not always a fallacy.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:40
Proletariat wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean, you'e assuming that:
1.- All testimonies are fake
2.- Everything s a fraud
With no evidence.
Mike, this:
In this particular place: A person being in several places at once without actually travelling. Yeah, right, and it's obviously a particularly Catholic trait, for reasons untold. And monkeys might fly out of my ass
Is not an argument at all.
Iván
I am REALLY athiest and hate the idea of saints but Ivan is right, you all are playing the part of a bigot. Please calm down and discuss this like rational people but dont make all of us athiests look like angry teenagers.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 14:45
Dean wrote:
How is this argument fallacious? I grant you it is facetious and even flippant to some extent, but if we had continued to dispense with science for explanations of the unexplanable and rely solely on "the church" then the Rennaissance and the Age of Enlightenment would never have occurred - that is not a fallacy since evidence of the church suppressing and forbidding scientific investigation that would contradict scripture are well documented.
The Dark Ages are so called because we know little of what happened during that period, mainly I would add, because the only scholarly scribes were in the employ of the church and were only involved in transcribing scripture not documenting history. It was the direct consequence of the most powerful establishment in Europe that created this lack of information. That the Islamic Golden Age occurred at the same time and eclipsed everything that happened in "the West" is an indictment against that establishment (and why there were no African priests and monks during that period even though there had been three African Popes prior to that).
My avatar is a good example of why calling them the Dark Ages in the West is perfectly correct and not politically incorrect - he was undoubtedly a great man, Albion's first true king perhaps, and certainly a renowned scholar, but all of the written works he is associated with are in relation to the christian religion and nothing else. The "technology" and "history" that was lost during that period is incalculable and immeasurable - we know more of the Roman, Greek and Egyptian histories than we do of the Saxon Kings and the Iron Age and we know more of the Popes of Rome than we do of the European Kings of the same period - that is not philosophy that is science.
Oh come on now Dean, the term Dark Ages has negative connotations, therefore using it in relation to miracles carries the implication of backwardness (ie name-calling, though not actually saying the words). I agree with you on the subject of miracles, which was the point I was trying to make re Pope John Paul II and the fall of communism. No need to look for people re-growing limbs
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: December 11 2010 at 15:03
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
If the catholic church wants to elevate individuals to sainthood in recognition for good deeds then I don't have issue with that - in the secular world honorifics are given to people in recognition for good works in every walk of life. If Martin de Porres or Mother Teressa did good work then by all means honour them (and although I tend to side with Hitchens on Mother Teressa's attitude to birth-control in the third world, I do accept she did good).
What good did she do exactly? Many think that her odd beliefs not withstanding, she took care of poor, dying people. Yeah, she did, but she also refused to give them pain medication. The good old Catholic idea that suffering brings us closer to Christ ...
Do you have evidence (In this case you need it to accuse a parson), or it is the information you got via Hitchens or from the campaign to boycott the Stamp of Mother Teresa started by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a group of ignorants who want to ban the stamp only because she was a nun and are posting lies without any proof?
Iván
BTW: I say ignorants, because USA is making a tribute to her not for being Catholic or a nun, but for a life working with the sick and starving..
This guys from Freedom from Religion Foundation are bigots and ignorants, they claim Mother Teresa can't have a stamp because she's a Nun but they agree with PASTOR Martin Luther King having a stamp
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 11 2010 at 17:10
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 11 2010 at 15:12
stonebeard wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Science is one tool, saying it's ''the best'' is ultimately subjective.
What are the other tools if not science? And how should we trust them?
All the other academic disciplines. Anything that helps us make sense of our world. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Dean but, if I remember correctly, he doesn't think philosophy has any real use. But what does science actually do for us? Other than make our lives more comfortable.
Protection, survival, reproduction. Anything else is just tarts and gingerbread.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.430 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
