Lundy, thought I addressed this earlier: Sorry to repeat myself...but come on....how do you define "PROOF"? You cannot accept any beliefs that you yourself cannot prove? If you don't trust the "science" of others, do you not use antibiotics because you can't see for yourself exactly how they work? Do you fly in airplanes? Use a computer? etc. etc.,etc...
We've worked hard to establish a civil tone, I'd hate to see that flushed down the toilet again. Let's all be little fonzies, come on now kids we know what fonzie's likeâ¦. I submit there have to be absolutes or we are engaging in meaningless chatter. The question is what is true and what is not, not whether truth even exists. If 'logic is valid' and 'words can convey meaning' are not accepted as true then all conversation is a waste of time- or not even conversation but a collection of silly sounds. I submit we must be able to trust our minds to hold valid reasoning power within them, even if the conclusions are not always correct. Our brains are not a practical joke on us, our senses are not carnival tricks. I believe it can be proven that the moon is closer than the sun, not because I can measure the distance myself but because I accept the tools of science to be reasonable and accurate in this regard. To debate constructively, men must be able to dialogue with one another and speak the same language. Logic and reason are our common ground. I think the point Lundy was trying to make (or perhaps the one I am attempting to extract from his statement) is that science sometimes tries to hog the truth ball for itself, which is exactly what logical positivists do. I believe in the existence of electrons, though I have never actually seen one. I believe in God, though I have not actually seen Him (yet). A critical point to highlight is that it requires a degree of faith to believe in both, and that there are arguable evidences of reason for both. One is simply more controversial than the other. I believe that I can observe with my mind and heart as effectively as I can with my eyes or ears or with a microscope. Let's not throw logic away, but rather recognize how quickly we draw up against the bounds of proof. I accept the proofs of science insofar as scientists stick to what they have proven. As soon as they start making unwarranted conclusions from their experiments, they stray off the reservation. Being a proponent of aristotelian logic (which I believe is not an aristotelian invention at all but rather God's logic w/ aristotle merely being one of the first sharp minds to uncover it), I believe that contradictions arise within our minds and within our languages rather than in reality. That is to say, if something looks impossible or a piece seems not to fit, then the problem is with the observer's bad information or partial understanding rather than a problem with reality. The only thing I am willing to label 'nonsense' here and now is a rejection of basic logic. If we would attempt to see, we cannot declare ourselves blind from the start- refuting logic would be a declaration of such. So I do not think we should ask scientists to give up their proofs or to suspend faith in what they believe. I merely think we should ask them to recognize that there are limits to their experiments, and that wearing a white coat does not necessarily give one authority to make pronouncements regarding what is beyond the closed system. Tolerance has been spoken of as a virtue multiple times in this thread. There is a lot of good and true in science, and a lot of crap also. The same goes with philosophy. If scientists and philosophers could recognize they are allies and not enemies and try to make do without spitting on each other, we would do better. I have been sharply critical of science on this thread because I believe some put too much faith in it, not because I am against it. I am pro truth in all arenas. I believe science is a powerful and useful tool for understanding, but a limited one. I think this thread is effectively demonstrating Aquinas' folly. It is easy to use flawed logic in defense of perceived truth (Aquinas did this very thing). When this happens, the flaw ends up doing damage to the position rather than bolstering the position. It happens frequently on both sides of the coin. But since we are naturally forgiving of ourselves, when we catch ourselves in a flawed argument (or when our opponent catches us) we shrug it off, because we understand that a single argument usually does not make or break the belief. While debate can be constructive, engaging and fun, we can't really expect foundational viewpoints to be changed with a few threads. We've got to remember that intellectual consent is not only an act of mind but an act of will. A strongly held position is like an oak tree, with many roots under the surface. Just like an expert can not always tell you why they are good at something because much of their knowledge is subconscious, an adherent of a belief system cannot lay out all the connections up front. In trying to change minds instantly on a simple thread, it is like trying to knock down a building with a whiffle ball bat. I suggest the best we can do is to provoke thoughtful reflection, plant seeds that may one day grow, and not much more. Commisso: you highlight a sticky point with right and wrong. I believe that if we are to be consistent, we must first decide where moral authority begins. If it begins with man, then you are correct that there is no true right and wrong, only preference. If all men are to be measured, they must be measured against a higher authority. If man is the only measure, then no man can justifiably condemn another and pragmatic use of force is the only morality. p.s. Gekko perhaps u can see a difference between my stance and yours here. I have studied your path and while I know that I am right and you are wrong, I do not call you a dummy or an idiot or say your stance is based on nonsense. Faulty reasoning and being utterly devoid of reason are most definitely different ballparks. If understanding is ultimately a gift- and I believe it most definitely is- then those who know do not have the luxury of feeling better about themselves than those who do not know.
Hey Darkhorse, How are you? Glad to see you are not at a loss for words I hope that you aren't down on me now for trying to lighten up the thread I started. And I hope the "thank god i'm an atheist" was not offensive to you or anyone else. Fact is, I am NOT an atheist. I just feel that a trading post is not the place for me to express my personal beliefs. This absolutely does not mean that I judge it not to be appropriate for others. Not one word in these 70+ pages has in any way offended me, upset me, or effected me in any personal way whatsoever. Amused me? Yes. Enlightened me? Yes, that too. My point being, I can and do accept all information and opinions as worthy of consideration. If I disagree, I will still consider that MAYBE I am wrong! If I want to have fun with something, I will do that too, believing I am not wrong in trying. I only limit my responses by trying to never make them mean spirited. If you want to see the one time I really DID get pissed off, take a look at my responses to the guy that told a 17 year old that "education is over-rated"....(The "What Kind of Training" thread...about the 4th page)..Someone finally pushed MY buttons! By the way, I mentioned you specifically in that thread if you did not see it....along with several other contributors to this thread. All in a positive way! Best, RS7 (not the car)
just for the record, i do not seriously hate anyone here or anything. i tend to exaggerate the things i say sometimes just to ruffle feathers. you're free to think whatever you want and so am i.
rs7: yeah i saw that thread, thx for the props, i would have said basically same general ideas if i were in your shoes, i get my buttons pushed on occasion as well though i'm getting better about restraining myself (insert mr. subliminal joke here) no worries about the light jokes, i can take em and dish em out too, though i do appreciate the mention and the effort to establish playful tone rather than spiteful one. i'm actually more happy go lucky than many would think (a benefit of knowing things are all gonna work out in the long run )
LOL i could have some real fun with this one...but nah, one long post is enough for the day. thumbs up bro, enjoy the trip rs7: you don't know who fonzie is? happy days? pulp fiction? one o'clock two o'clock three o'clock rock....
Ah...Fonzie...what does he have to do with this? And where in Pulp Fiction? (One of my alltime favorite flicks, but I don't remember an allusion to fonzie....my old age coming into play again I guess).
Pumpkin: Chill out, honey! Honey Bunny: Let him go! Jules: (softly) Tell her it's gonna be okay. Pumpkin: I'm gonna be okay. Jules: Promise her. Pumpkin: I promise. Jules: Tell her to chill. Pumpkin: Just chill out. Jules: What's her name? Pumpkin: Yolanda. Whenever Jules talks to Yolanda, he never looks at her, only at Pumpkin. Jules: (to Yolanda) So, we cool Yolanda? We ain't gonna do anything stupid, are we? Yolanda: (crying) Don't you hurt him. Jules: Nobody's gonna hurt anybody. We're gonna be like three Fonzies. And what' Fonzie like? No answer. Jules: C'mon Yolanda, what's Fonzie like? Yolanda: (through tears, unsure) He's cool?