Why scoff science?

[Blackjack200]

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't somehow magically make it more true.

What did I say that was not true? Did the theory of evolution exist before Descartes?

 

[Herbot]

What did I say that was not true? Did the theory of evolution exist before Descartes?

Considering that Descartes started the synthesis of metaphysics and natural philosophy, and that Darwin was directly influenced by him, I'd say that "you people" need to actually become educated about the origins of science instead of espousing beliefs based on anti-religious rhetoric.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yeah, guys like Decartes and Aquinas certainly weren't educated, much less rational...

Postmodern thought has destroyed your minds.

Relative to today's level of education, those men were indeed uneducated. It also remains a fact that anyone believing the existence of god is an objective fact is not rational with respect to that belief.

 

[Blackjack200]

Considering that Descartes started the synthesis of metaphysics and natural philosophy, and that Darwin was directly influenced by him, I'd say that "you people" need to actually become educated about the origins of science instead of espousing beliefs based on anti-religious rhetoric.

There is nothing metaphysical about evolution, it is a hard science, and in any case, it has progressed substantially since Darwin's time. That Darwin was influenced by Descartes does not mean that Descartes would not have been influenced by Darwin.

 

[Herbot]

It also remains a fact that anyone believing the existence of god is an objective fact is not rational with respect to that belief.

Patently false. It is true that God cannot be proven empirically, i.e. "scientifically", but that's like saying the color blue has no taste and is therefore non-existent. Metaphysics exists to answers questions related to God, purpose of life, etc. Science is incapable of making any valid claims about metaphysical questions. I can assure you that metaphysics is based purely on rational thought. Who do you think invented logic?

Seriously, are you people going to continue speaking from an obviously uneducated viewpoint?

 

[Herbot]

There is nothing metaphysical about evolution, it is a hard science, and in any case, it has progressed substantially since Darwin's time. That Darwin was influenced by Descartes does not mean that Descartes would not have been influenced by Darwin.

What does this have to do with what I said? Nothing.

When in doubt, obfuscate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Patently false. It is true that God cannot be proven empirically, i.e. "scientifically", but that's like saying the color blue has no taste and is therefore non-existent.

It is nothing like that at all. I think you should revisit your understanding of "objective" resp. "subjective."

Metaphysics exists to answers questions related to God, purpose of life, etc.

Metaphysics is not a domain of objective facts.

Science is incapable of making any valid claims about metaphysical questions. I can assure you that metaphysics is based purely on rational thought.

Metaphysics is certainly not rational, since it pertains not to objective reality.

EDIT: I felt I should add, I don't think metaphysics are necessarily irrational, either. They are rather arational, since they are not subject to the constraints of objective reality.

Who do you think invented logic?

Why do you think logic has anything to do with objective reality?

Seriously, are you people going to continue speaking from an obviously uneducated viewpoint?

Physician, heal thyself!

 

[Blackjack200]

What does this have to do with what I said? Nothing.

When in doubt, obfuscate.

It has everything to do with what you said. When in doubt, evade.

 

[Herbot]

It is nothing like that at all. I think you should revisit your understanding of "objective" resp. "subjective."


Metaphysics is not a domain of objective facts.


Metaphysics is certainly not rational, since it pertains not to objective reality.


Why do you think logic has anything to do with objective reality?


Physician, heal thyself!

Let me rewrite your post more succinctly: "SCIENCE IS MY RELIGION"

The words "objective" and "subjective" have nothing to do with "fact". That's meaningless nonsense. Perhaps you mean a priori vs. empirical, but it's possible you're completely unfamiliar with such terms. Science is empirical, which isn't "objective" in the sense you're trying to use it. At all. Metaphysics is based purely on a priori knowledge and logic, by definition.

I always like reading stupid posts like this because it's obvious someone didn't get a very good classical education, i.e., one that covers all topics as opposed to a small subset of topics based on humanist nonsense.

 

[Herbot]

It has everything to do with what you said. When in doubt, evade.

I already directly refuted your post. You have no legitimate response.

 

[Herbot]

I'm still wondering why all the "religion haters" out there have such a hard time accepting the fact that science, BY DEFINITION, cannot prove or disprove certain things. Just because a bunch of radical morons hate evolution in no way invalidates the idea that God exists. Religious zealots give a bad name to theism, but scientific zealots give just as bad a name to science. There's no belief in either science nor religion that cannot be rectified with the other.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Let me rewrite your post more succinctly: "SCIENCE IS MY RELIGION"

Translation: I HATE THAT MY OPPONENT IS RIGHT, AND I ALSO HAVE HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES.

Isn't this fun?

The words "objective" and "subjective" have nothing to do with "fact". That's meaningless nonsense.

Balderdash. Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

Perhaps you mean a priori vs. empirical, but it's possible you're completely unfamiliar with such terms. Science is empirical, which isn't "objective" in the sense you're trying to use it.

It is exactly objective in the sense that I use it. I think you simply don't understand what facts are.

At all.

Rutebega.

Metaphysics is based purely on a priori knowledge and logic, by definition.

Which has certainly nothing to do with objective reality.

I always like reading stupid posts like this because it's obvious someone didn't get a very good classical education, i.e., one that covers all topics as opposed to a small subset of topics based on humanist nonsense.

Rabble, rabble, rabble!!!

 

[Herbot]

Translation: I HATE THAT MY OPPONENT IS RIGHT, AND I ALSO HAVE HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES.

Isn't this fun?


Balderdash. Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.


It is exactly objective in the sense that I use it. I think you simply don't understand what facts are.


Rutebega.


Which has certainly nothing to do with objective reality.


Rabble, rabble, rabble!!!

Nicely done. As stated before: obfuscate. You really have being an idiot down pat.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm still wondering why all the "religion haters" out there have such a hard time accepting the fact that science, BY DEFINITION, cannot prove or disprove certain things.

I certainly hope that you do not suppose that I am one of those you've characterized here. If you do, then it is obvious you haven't read this thread thoroughly.

Just because a bunch of radical morons hate evolution in no way invalidates the idea that God exists.

It invalidates a great number of reasons often supplied which allegedly demand the existence of God as an "explanation." In fact, there remain no compelling reasons to suppose God exists at all.

So why should we?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nicely done. As stated before: obfuscate. You really have being an idiot down pat.

"When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff." - Cicero.

Any time you care to debate, feel free to offer your contestations to the facts given above. You can't, of course, because there is no rational basis to contest them, but there they will stand, ever to your chagrin. :awe:

 

[Blackjack200]

Let me rewrite your post more succinctly: "SCIENCE IS MY RELIGION"

The words "objective" and "subjective" have nothing to do with "fact". That's meaningless nonsense. Perhaps you mean a priori vs. empirical, but it's possible you're completely unfamiliar with such terms. Science is empirical, which isn't "objective" in the sense you're trying to use it. At all. Metaphysics is based purely on a priori knowledge and logic, by definition.

I always like reading stupid posts like this because it's obvious someone didn't get a very good classical education, i.e., one that covers all topics as opposed to a small subset of topics based on humanist nonsense.

Posts such as yours are an equally entertaining reminder of individuals who place outsized importance on metaphysics and other academic diversions with little real-world application.

Scientists don't necessarily persue a "classical" education because their time is consumed trying to expand the realm of actual scientific knowledge.

 

[Herbot]

It invalidates a great number of reasons often supplied which allegedly demand the existence of God as an "explanation." In fact, there remain no compelling reasons to suppose God exists at all.

So why should we?

Purpose of the universe or life? Science explains the how, metaphysics explains the why. Not having one or the other leads one to make idiotic claims.

EDIT: Point proven...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Purpose of the universe or life? ... metaphysics explains the why.

No, it doesn't. It supposes a lot of things, but it offers no meaninful explanations because it doesn't deal with objective reality. That is the fact you are so reluctant to confront. Metaphysics are myths. They can be useful, but they should not be supposed to be factual.

Not having one or the other leads one to make idiotic claims.

Like claiming that metaphysics deal with facts.

EDIT: Point proven...

Which was that?

 

[Herbot]

Posts such as yours are an equally entertaining reminder of individuals who place outsized importance on metaphysics and other academic diversions with little real-world application

This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Basically, unless you're learning about something like chemistry or biology, you're wasting your time. What about literature, music, painting, poetry? Theology and philosophy, the cornerstones of morality and the foundation of rationality, meaningless tripe?

 

[Herbot]

No, it doesn't. It supposes a lot of things, but it offers no meaninful explanations because it doesn't deal with objective reality. That is the fact you are so reluctant to confront. Metaphysics are myths. They can be useful, but they should not be supposed to be factual.


Like claiming that metaphysics deal with facts.


Which was that?

Empiricism != Objective

Get a clue.

 

[Blackjack200]

This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Basically, unless you're learning about something like chemistry or biology, you're wasting your time. What about literature, music, painting, poetry? Theology and philosophy, the cornerstones of morality and the foundation of rationality, meaningless tripe?

Being diversions does not mean they are a waste of time, but it does mean that they pale in importance to science. My enjoyment of certain books, music, art, etc. is an indivdual pursuit. Contributions to science impact everyone.

 

[Siddhartha]

Real science does not offer the absolute certainty that religion gives. The statement "as far as we know" is implicit in science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Empiricism != Objective

Get a clue.

I think you have misapprehended my position.

Truth can conceivably have three characteristics: 1.) It can be obective 2.) It can be absolute or 3.) It can deal with reality. The difficulty is that it can only feature any 2 of these characteristics simultaneously.

It can be objective and deal with reality, but then it isn't absolute. This is scientific truth.

It can be absolute and deal with reality, but then it is not objective. This is religious truth.

It can be objective and absolute, but then it does not deal with reality. This is mathematical truth.

You appear to be of the opinion that "metatphysics" feature these three characterisitcs simultaneously, which is simply an error of fact.

 

[Herbot]

Being diversions does not mean they are a waste of time, but it does mean that they pale in importance to science. My enjoyment of certain books, music, art, etc. is an indivdual pursuit. Contributions to science impact everyone.

Are you for real?

 

[jersiq]

Being diversions does not mean they are a waste of time, but it does mean that they pale in importance to science. My enjoyment of certain books, music, art, etc. is an indivdual pursuit. Contributions to science impact everyone.

I hate to butt in here, but

Are you honestly saying that literature pales to science? Until you invent a "Freedom Ray" I am going to stand by the assertion that books such as 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Animal Farm have a much far reaching social impact than the sciences.

Or maybe I am taking you too far out of context?