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.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 11 2010 at 17:21
seventhsojourn wrote:
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
Whether modern society is better than Early Middle Ages society, that was my point on philosophy/science.
Of course it has negative connotations - that's why I admitted it was facetious and using it in realtion to miracles doesn't just imply backwardness - it is backwardness - that's why I used the words flippantly.
That the "Dark Ages" themselves were not actually dark is completely irrelevant to this argument. Now if you want to argue that life in Europe during the Middle Ages was better than life today, that's a different matter - but not one we can actually indulge in because we have so little evidence and no actual experience of those times. That is not philosophy, that is social history.
As for the Miracle of Calanda - erm. No. We cannot use that since we are 400 years too late to apply any modern medical tests to verify its veracity - it is merely hearsay and/or myth - even Wiki says "allegedly".
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 11 2010 at 17:54
seventhsojourn wrote:
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.
I think the study of philosophy is a waste of a human mind. I believe the phrase I used was no practical use.
Look at it this way - if we could discover the actual mechanism for the spontaneous remission of cancer "miracle" and in understanding that mechanism go on to produce a real and practical cure for all cancer which discipline do you think has the best chance of producing results - philosophy or theology or medical science (cell biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, haematology, genetics, genomics and genetic epidemiology, radiology, etc.)?
Even if miracles are genuine manifestations of some divine being acting in mysterious ways, they tend to be a little unpredictable, extremely unreliable and very selective in who they treat and who they don't. When it comes to protection and survival I'll go with the alternatives that do not require the usage of paranormal phenomenas.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 12 2010 at 03:15
seventhsojourn wrote:
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?
You would first have to understand what physicists mean by "something" or "nothing". Search for "Lawrence Krauss" on YouTube and watch the lecture ... maybe it will help your understand of where these scientists are coming from.
BTW: "Logic" has little to do with it. Your last sentence could be better put as "How does that make sense?" - and maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't have to make sense for use three dimensional creatures - we already have difficulties imagining a fourth dimension, let alone 10+ dimensions and concepts like quantum mechanics and string theory.
In very simple terms (and I'm not a physicist): Since we're part of the universe, we may not be ideally suited to understand how it (and us along with it) were created, what was "before" or what may be "beyond". It's the religious people who insist on having the answer (the three letter word). Scientists are comfortable with not knowing, but keeping on searching for answers.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 12 2010 at 03:18
Ivan_Melgar_M 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 ...
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
Did you actually watch the video(s)? Of course they're not from a neutral position, but they contain a lot of authentic footage and interviews of her. If you're dismissing all of that out of hand, it's YOU who's being ignorant.
BTW: Never even heard of this stamp issue - and I couldn't care less. It's a nice attempt to build a straw man (decoy), but it won't work. My beef is with her and her "company", not with a stamp.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 12 2010 at 03:36
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: December 12 2010 at 03:32
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You would first have to understand what physicists mean by "something" or "nothing". Search for "Lawrence Krauss" on YouTube and watch the lecture ... maybe it will help your understand of where these scientists are coming from.
BTW: "Logic" has little to do with it. Your last sentence could be better put as "How does that make sense?" - and maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't have to make sense for use three dimensional creatures - we already have difficulties imagining a fourth dimension, let alone 10+ dimensions and concepts like quantum mechanics and string theory.
In very simple terms (and I'm not a physicist): Since we're part of the universe, we may not be ideally suited to understand how it (and us along with it) were created, what was "before" or what may be "beyond". It's the religious people who insist on having the answer (the three letter word). Scientists are comfortable with not knowing, but keeping on searching for answers.
Careful Mike, an atheist does not believe in creation.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 12 2010 at 04:34
Okay Mike, thanks for posting the video. I'll watch it later when I get the chance... btw, what was the reason for the change to the thread title? I meant to ask you before now.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 12 2010 at 08:12
seventhsojourn wrote:
Okay Mike, thanks for posting the video. I'll watch it later when I get the chance... btw, what was the reason for the change to the thread title? I meant to ask you before now.
Thanks for reminding me - I changed the thread title back to something useful. I changed it a couple of week ago when an admin had changed it in order to make a point - but the issue has long been dealt with.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 12 2010 at 08:15
Snow Dog wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Of course we do - or at least I do ... just not the biblical creation. And let's change "believe" to "believe in the possibility of".
I really recommend anyone remotely interested in the topic to watch the lecture:
So you do believe in the possibility of a creator? Interesting. Does that make you an agnostic (technically)?
No - although I believe in the *possibility*, I also think that it's very, very unlikely. I'd rather go with the universe from nothing theory than with a creator in the Deist sense. It would simply be unscientific to deny the possibility of a creator - that's all.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: December 12 2010 at 08:17
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Of course we do - or at least I do ... just not the biblical creation. And let's change "believe" to "believe in the possibility of".
I really recommend anyone remotely interested in the topic to watch the lecture:
So you do believe in the possibility of a creator? Interesting. Does that make you an agnostic (technically)?
No - although I believe in the *possibility*, I also think that it's very, very unlikely. I'd rather go with the universe from nothing theory than with a creator in the Deist sense. It would simply be unscientific to deny the possibility of a creator - that's all.
So if you admit that it is possible for there to be a creator then it follows that the possibility of said creator performing miracles also exists.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: December 12 2010 at 08:31
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Okay Mike, thanks for posting the video. I'll watch it later when I get the chance... btw, what was the reason for the change to the thread title? I meant to ask you before now.
Thanks for reminding me - I changed the thread title back to something useful. I changed it a couple of week ago when an admin had changed it in order to make a point - but the issue has long been dealt with.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 12 2010 at 08:36
Snow Dog wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Of course we do - or at least I do ... just not the biblical creation. And let's change "believe" to "believe in the possibility of".
I really recommend anyone remotely interested in the topic to watch the lecture:
So you do believe in the possibility of a creator? Interesting. Does that make you an agnostic (technically)?
No - although I believe in the *possibility*, I also think that it's very, very unlikely. I'd rather go with the universe from nothing theory than with a creator in the Deist sense. It would simply be unscientific to deny the possibility of a creator - that's all.
So if you admit that it is possible for there to be a creator then it follows that the possibility of said creator performing miracles also exists.
Sure - miracles are a possibility. It's also a possibility that unicorns exist, or the Loch Ness monster, or Bigfoot. That doesn't mean that I believe in any of those things.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: December 12 2010 at 09:00
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
[
Did you actually watch the video(s)? Of course they're not from a neutral position, but they contain a lot of authentic footage and interviews of her. If you're dismissing all of that out of hand, it's YOU who's being ignorant.
BTW: Never even heard of this stamp issue - and I couldn't care less. It's a nice attempt to build a straw man (decoy), but it won't work. My beef is with her and her "company", not with a stamp.
Mike do you consider this hate video called "Angel from Hell" (with a caricature of MotherTeresa with s distorted face to look scary)a evidence of anything? It's incredibly easy to attack and do nothing and even easier to manipulate a documentary.
The footage says nothing, tMary Loudon r only describes what happens in any hospital with no funds...Have you ever been in Perú and seen public hospitals? Calcutta is not the Mayo Clinic.
It's funny why she gets impressed with people with head shaved, instead of saying that this people reach the hospice with louses and ticks that will kill them faster.
Of course we have to guess what is true and what is part of her imagination as a writer and her opinion probably as an atheist, probably this woman doesn't know that daily lot of people die in the streets of Calcutta.
The whole world, UN, the Nobel Committee even the USA Government who declared her USA citizen consider her work incredible, but a well known atheist as Hitchens with sick hate to everything related to religion despite what they do say she was a fraud.....Don't you believe this is simply his hatred reflected?
The world is wrong, Hitchens is right
If you call this evidence you are the ignorant Mike.
Ivcán
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 12 2010 at 09:19
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 12 2010 at 09:18
^ If you refuse to call it "evidence" then you don't know what the word means - we've discussed this a couple of pages earlier. There are different kinds of "evidence".
Regardless, I think it's save to say that in this Home of the Dying the nuns are more interested in converting those people to Catholicism than to ease their suffering.
This sums it up nicely - and it's even less "neutral" than the Hitchens documentary, but it raises some justified concerns, which you can't easily dismiss. Well, short of simply ignoring them, that is.
BTW: The video only features a few Hitchens statements - it mainly focuses on her company, and what is done with the money that people donate.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 12 2010 at 09:20
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 0.367 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
seventhsojourn wrote:
