[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

if i understood it, i disagree with parts... this, to me, is a good example of what we were talking about earlier when i said that there are people who deny the existence of metaphysical entities... they must do so...

notice this portion from your quote, "... "reality independent from consciousness" (properly denoted by the word "fact") ..." examine that for a moment and tell me what he really means

I think he is showing that he believes Harris is trying to move the debate outside the area of facts.

so that i understand, does this rule out abstract truths?

It is a good question, Jimmy, and I cannot speak for the author but only give my view of what he meant. Fair enough?

I would think he would be ruling out abstract truths - as the truth of an abstact is a convention, is it not? (Or is that debatable?) My understanding of what he means is that which does not rely on convention to be factual.

if that's the case, it's exactly my point... in my worldview, things like the laws of logic are true and i can account for them... for someone to argue that only material facts can be debated means that this someone is borrowing from my worldview (using logic) to argue his

[kenberg]

To me, the assertion that these folks just want to teach more science is more or less like the assertion Tom Daschle just didn't understand that his income was taxable. Difficult to say with a straight face.

A course that seriously addressed the methods of science, the combination of conceptual formulations and experimental checkbacks, using historical examples from physics, chemistry and other sciences could be a fascinating course. I had a course in college from Paul Holmer (a somewhat recently deceased theologian) that addressed religion in historical and philosophical manner. It was a great course.

A course that specifically offers the religious interpretation of creation as an alternative theory to the scientific explanation, complete with metaphysical underpinnings, would also be fine in a school devoted to religious training. At the college level, I think not at the high school level, a course contrasting religious approaches to discovering truth with the scientific approach could be very interesting and challenging. But if it is to be an honest course, the religious view has to be presented as an alternative to science rather than as more science. More science it is not. I opted long ago for the scientific view, but to each his own.

From what I have seen many religious people can hold to their belief in a Divine Presence without trashing science. Although my beliefs don't include a Divine Presence, I have no quarrel with those who follow that route as long as they don't claim that it is science. Without trying to parse too finely just what is science and what isn't, a belief system that holds that you can find the answer to the mystery of creation by reading a 2000 plus year old book that was written by divine inspiration is not science and no amount of word juggling will make it into a science.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I would think he would be ruling out abstract truths - as the truth of an abstact is a convention, is it not? (Or is that debatable?) My understanding of what he means is that which does not rely on convention to be factual. 


if that's the case, it's exactly my point... in my worldview, things like the laws of logic are true and i can account for them... for someone to argue that only material facts can be debated means that this someone is borrowing from my worldview (using logic) to argue his

Hold on, I said that he ruled out abstracts because the truth of an abstract is a convention. But you have claimed the abstracts of morality and logic are not convention but objective. So what you are doing is exactly what the author said was being done in support of ID - challenging the definition of facts to include logic-proven conclusions although you are aware that valid logicical arguments can either be false or be based on a false premise. The only conclusion to draw then is that you believe observable facts have this same flaw - can either be false or be based on false premise.

I don't see the author using your worldview to argue his case but simply using the rules you have set down for argument - you say you won't accept a logically non-valid argument - that's fair - but then you go on to say not only will you not accept a non-valid argument but any valid argument must begin with the conclusion of your argument based on your premises.

You are changing the argument to "What is a fact"?

I think to most of us that which is believed due to observation carries a more valid claim of factuality than that which cannot be observed.

I think I understand now - this is how ID becomes the equivalent to science in your worldview. The fossil record is no more provably accurate than an internally consistent argument based on logic principles.

Is that about it?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

Quote

I would think he would be ruling out abstract truths - as the truth of an abstact is a convention, is it not? (Or is that debatable?) My understanding of what he means is that which does not rely on convention to be factual. 


if that's the case, it's exactly my point... in my worldview, things like the laws of logic are true and i can account for them... for someone to argue that only material facts can be debated means that this someone is borrowing from my worldview (using logic) to argue his

Hold on, I said that he ruled out abstracts because the truth of an abstract is a convention. But you have claimed the abstracts of morality and logic are not convention but objective. So what you are doing is exactly what the author said was being done in support of ID - challenging the definition of facts to include logic-proven conclusions although you are aware that valid logicical arguments can either be false or be based on a false premise. The only conclusion to draw then is that you believe observable facts have this same flaw - can either be false or be based on false premise.

maybe i misunderstood.. let me rephrase what i think he's saying and you can correct my understanding... he's saying that anything other than a fact is offlimits in debate, and he defines a fact as something that is material... if that is incorrect, does he grant that abstracts (such as the law of non-contradiction) is a fact?

and if the truth of the law of non-contradiction is merely a convention, then it might not hold in a society less ... conventional... is that correct?

[luke warm]

just bumping this, i'm interested in your answer

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 12 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

just bumping this, i'm interested in your answer

And I'm still interested in your answer to my question about objective morality in your other thread...

[Winstonm]

Quote

if that is incorrect, does he grant that abstracts (such as the law of non-contradiction) is a fact?

No idea. I didn't write it and I don't know the author.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 12 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 12 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

just bumping this, i'm interested in your answer

And I'm still interested in your answer to my question about objective morality in your other thread...

i thought i had answered you, i'll go check... ok, i found this, is it what you meant? if not, i apologize

PassedOut, on Feb 10 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Quote

But I gather that what you are saying is that morality is objective when moral questions are evaluated according to an internally consistent worldview, but subjective otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly?

no you aren't... i don't hold to objective morality because of my worldview, but i can account for it from within my worldview... start with your view of morality... do you believe it is objective or subjective? whatever your answer, it is a part of your view...

Quote

Quote

If you reread my statement, you'll note that I did not ask why you hold that morality is objective, not subjective.

Instead, I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by an objective morality. Once I understand that, it might be clear to me why you take that position. So I'll take another crack at it.

i thought i'd said what i mean many times... i mean that for any act to which one ascribes morality, the person making the call practices subjectivity if the act itself can be both moral and immoral depending on who committed it or why it is being committed ... winston's rabbi, for example

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

Quote

if that is incorrect, does he grant that abstracts (such as the law of non-contradiction) is a fact?

No idea. I didn't write it and I don't know the author.

well you did say this about his quote

Quote

Hold on, I said that he ruled out abstracts because the truth of an abstract is a convention.

so i assumed you had some opinion as to what he meant by other parts... i also assumed you were in agreement and i was under the impression that you had some idea of what it was you were in agreement with

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 12 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

i thought i had answered you, i'll go check... ok, i found this, is it what you meant? if not, i apologize

You are right, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.