Christianity

[Belinda]

It's simple. Immmanuel confuses history and fiction. Confusing the Jesus of history with the Christ of faith is common to all modern Christian sects, some more so than others. There is a spectrum of religious sects on which history conflates with faith at one pole and history is separate from faith at t-other.

Anything but simple. And of tremendous consequence. Especially in our contemporary situation.

I bring cooling clarity especially in this region.

Okay I retract "It's simple".

You still have not made your case apropos my remark.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The 'Christianity' of the US extreme right is not the same Christianity of the US faithful who follow a different interpretation of Christian sources.

It is an interesting and complex topic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You still have not made your case apropos my remark.

What would you like clarified or amplified?

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, straight to the ad hominem again. It betrays a weakness of argument.

No, a statement of fact,

Let us suppose it were. It would still be utterly irrelevant. That's what the concept of the ad hominem fallacy exposes to us. And you know it, I'm sure.

Criticism of ‘the man’ in this sense is a delicate, demanding art. I happen to be exceptionally skilled in this area.

Yes, and very humble, too, you'll assure us.

I've heard some other philosopher, and I can't quite remember which, say something like, "Conservatives argue to prove, and Wokies diagnose." That's very astute. Conservatives believe in things like reason, evidence, logic, dialogue, persuasion...and all Wokies ever do, it seems, is say things like, "You're only saying that because you're a racist," or "because you're a sexist," or "you're a homophobe, and Islamophobe, a white, a Colonialist, a fat-phobic person, an Ablist or a Nazi." In other words, they really have nothing to say relevant to the content of any utterance -- they're just looking for an amateur-diagnosis way of saying, "Whatever you say, I don't have to listen to it, because you're bad."

You're doing the same. And the fact that you're doing it is the clearest evidence that you either don't understand logic or don't have any facts left worth being introduced to the discussion. You're constantly reverting to a mere evasion tactic. And rather than it being some sophisticated achievement, it's the most childish strategy available.

You'll forgive me if I remain entirely unimpressed by your diagnostic skills. Especially since I can't recall at time when you were right even once. It's just really dull and boring...and, as always...irrelevant to any argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Social sciences include human feelings indirectly, while modern biologists have no use for feelings at all.

No, that's not quite true. Biologists might have less use for them, but they still enter into the study of living beings. Physics, by contrast, are heavily coded in mathematical language and tied to the physical realities of the external world. And that's why Physics is considered the "hardest" of the sciences.

Physicists include subjectivity of the human observer more and more compared with Newtonian physicists.

All sciences, including Physics, involve human observers. But not all depend on the reliability of human intution as much as the others. The human observer is, indeed, always a vulnerable point in any scientific theory or conclusion. But not equally. And measures like reproduceability, quantity of data, simplicity, and so forth (called "epistemic virtues") make Physics and Chemistry less susceptible to human error than Biology, and much less vulnerable than the Social "Sciences," which in many cases, do not really merit the term "science" at all. For a "science" has to comprise a specific methodology, a specific discipline pertaining to its subject: and Social "Sciences" drawn on all sorts of things, like intuition or creative imagination, that do not have any disciplinary method of their own, and on fragments from other disciplines that do have their own specific methodologies.

...the commodifying of life leads to war and poverty.

If that were true, there would be no wars or poverty in places in which there was no "commodifying." But in point of fact, we find that ancient and tribal societies, where "commodification" is unknown, are generally warlike and marked by a very, very low level of subsistence -- often well below what we would class as any Western "poverty line." So that theory falls to pieces immediately.

You've spent too much time with Marxists, it seems. Has it not occurred to you that all their explanations always turn out to be as wrong as Marx's own, and often poison everything on their way throught society? Just how has Critical Theory, or BLM, or Antifa "helped" us get anywhere?

Marxists can bellyache. They're also great at destruction, abuse and death. What they can never seem to do is build something good.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let us suppose it were. It would still be utterly irrelevant. That's what the concept of the ad hominem fallacy exposes to us. And you know it, I'm sure.

No Immanuel, I do not ‘know’ that. Therefore you are not sure. But you suppose that you are. Snd you wish to present yourself as sure. It is a game of assertion, you see?

I do not any longer ‘suppose’ what I understand about your amazing amphibiousness. It has solidified into a close certainty.

My analysis of you as a man is not ‘utterly irrelevant’. It is highly relevant and necessary.

Why? Because in the religious sense you operate from an epistemological base that you regard as utter and total realism. It is not myth but real, tangible history that is the structure for your believing self.

This must be understood to grasp what you and millions like you are about.

I make truer statements about you when I deal with the total man. And I apply the same to myself and to all others.

We — the man, the men — are the topics here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're doing the same. And the fact that you're doing it is the clearest evidence that you either don't understand logic or don't have any facts left worth being introduced to the discussion. You're constantly reverting to a mere evasion tactic. And rather than it being some sophisticated achievement, it's the most childish strategy available.

So you say …

[Immanuel Can]

Let us suppose it were. It would still be utterly irrelevant. That's what the concept of the ad hominem fallacy exposes to us. And you know it, I'm sure.

No Immanuel, I do not ‘know’ that.

Oh? Well, you could look up "ad hominem fallacy," and then maybe you could figure it out. But absent even such a basic insight on such a well-established concept, you've probably thrown your vaunted wisdom into considerable doubt as a result. It's not a very sophisticated realization, after all.

[Immanuel Can]

You're doing the same. And the fact that you're doing it is the clearest evidence that you either don't understand logic or don't have any facts left worth being introduced to the discussion. You're constantly reverting to a mere evasion tactic. And rather than it being some sophisticated achievement, it's the most childish strategy available.

So you say …

Any child will say "You're a _____," as a way of getting out of a jam. It's their first go-to, it seems. But then, they can be forgiven: they are not yet at the developmental stage to be able to discern the irrelevance of such a reply.

[Belinda]

Social sciences include human feelings indirectly, while modern biologists have no use for feelings at all.

No, that's not quite true. Biologists might have less use for them, but they still enter into the study of living beings. Physics, by contrast, are heavily coded in mathematical language and tied to the physical realities of the external world. And that's why Physics is considered the "hardest" of the sciences.

Physicists include subjectivity of the human observer more and more compared with Newtonian physicists.

All sciences, including Physics, involve human observers. But not all depend on the reliability of human intution as much as the others. The human observer is, indeed, always a vulnerable point in any scientific theory or conclusion. But not equally. And measures like reproduceability, quantity of data, simplicity, and so forth (called "epistemic virtues") make Physics and Chemistry less susceptible to human error than Biology, and much less vulnerable than the Social "Sciences," which in many cases, do not really merit the term "science" at all. For a "science" has to comprise a specific methodology, a specific discipline pertaining to its subject: and Social "Sciences" drawn on all sorts of things, like intuition or creative imagination, that do not have any disciplinary method of their own, and on fragments from other disciplines that do have their own specific methodologies.

...the commodifying of life leads to war and poverty.

If that were true, there would be no wars or poverty in places in which there was no "commodifying." But in point of fact, we find that ancient and tribal societies, where "commodification" is unknown, are generally warlike and marked by a very, very low level of subsistence -- often well below what we would class as any Western "poverty line." So that theory falls to pieces immediately.

You've spent too much time with Marxists, it seems. Has it not occurred to you that all their explanations always turn out to be as wrong as Marx's own, and often poison everything on their way throught society? Just how has Critical Theory, or BLM, or Antifa "helped" us get anywhere?

Marxists can bellyache. They're also great at destruction, abuse and death. What they can never seem to do is build something good.

Biology is the hardest of sciences . The biologist has no need of subjective feelings, There are ample social sciences and arts that address what is like to be human. The biologist looks at observable events and nothing but observable events.

I have the Marxist bias in my reasoning. If you want to say the Marxist bias is a misleading bias then you need to explain why . It is not enough to offer some set of statistics in place of argument.

Moreover it is simplistic to confuse correlation with causation which is what you do when you give examples of Communist states not working.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel,

Again, to understand you, this interesting and rather amazing person you present as Immanuel Can, requires a range of tools or perhaps methods. One being the strict analysis of the ideas you present.

For one example Are Adam & Eve real historical figures? Or Did God actually part the Red Sea?

When you “answer” these questions you resort to faith and belief assertions that you seem to confuse with facts of science, or history, thus you operate amphibiously, whereas no one here can pull this off.

You confuse accurate seeing of you — the attempt to understand how your mind and perception work — with ‘name calling’. Your mistake is here. Instead of understanding what I attempt in my analysis of you (and many others invested in such belief) you MUST categorize it negatively.

You actually believe that the A&E myth can be approached and examined as real history. One only needs an open mind (I gather).

This is nuttery from “our perspective” but the man Immanuel manages to pull it off. This trait, this skill of yours, fascinates me. Less because you embody it, more because it operates widely in the world of people.

Getting any clearer, Old Bean?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, you could look up "ad hominem fallacy," and then maybe you could figure it out.

I fully understand how the fallacy operates. Yet what you do not — you cannot! — grasp is that when a man is committed to ideas, or views, or beliefs, that are beyond the pale of believability, and doubles-down on his subjective belief as if it is rational or similar to science-supported facts, that man shows derangement in operation.

If one says “This is deranged!” is that ad hominem in your view? If one says “The man who performs this manoeuvre is deranged!” is that ad hominem in your view?

In my view we NEED to see and describe things as we are and to avoid the fallacy of self-deception.

The following, out of your mouth, is simply astounding from my perspective. Not because it is untrue, but because you as complete irrationalist say it!

You cannot recognize how deadly are these assertions to elements in your own professed beliefs.

Thus: you amaze!

All sciences, including Physics, involve human observers. But not all depend on the reliability of human intution as much as the others. The human observer is, indeed, always a vulnerable point in any scientific theory or conclusion. But not equally. And measures like reproduceability, quantity of data, simplicity, and so forth (called "epistemic virtues") make Physics and Chemistry less susceptible to human error than Biology, and much less vulnerable than the Social "Sciences," which in many cases, do not really merit the term "science" at all. For a "science" has to comprise a specific methodology, a specific discipline pertaining to its subject: and Social "Sciences" drawn on all sorts of things, like intuition or creative imagination, that do not have any disciplinary method of their own, and on fragments from other disciplines that do have their own specific methodologies.

[MikeNovack]

The following, out of your mouth, is simply astounding from my perspective. Not because it is untrue, but because you as complete irrationalist say it!
You cannot recognize how deadly are these assertions to elements in your own professed beliefs.
Thus: you amaze!

It does NOT amaze me. IC is not being irrational when he separates (irrational KNOWLEDGE of truth from the rational processes of science. Science is never claiming KNOWLEDGE of truth, Just providing us with a never vending process of testing whether our set of beliefs about what the truth is matches reality.

In other words, we constantly seek an as yet yet unobserved CONSEQUENCE of our set of beliefs about the real world and then devise an experiment to observe this consequence. The result matches what we expect? Good, our beliefs still stand, on to the next consequence. Does not match? Well one of our beliefs is wrong. Come up with somethin new to believe that matches all past consequences AND this new one (predicts the result we observed.

Our truth is not our current set of beliefs but the statement IF "our current set of beliefs THEN past observations explained" and we are forever testin against new observations.

I don't assume IC doesn't understand this. But he considers THAT sort of truth insufficient, He wants TRUTH/CERTAINTY which can only be by irrational belief/faith..

[Alexis Jacobi]

It does NOT amaze me. IC is not being irrational when he separates (irrational KNOWLEDGE of truth from the rational processes of science. Science is never claiming KNOWLEDGE of truth, Just providing us with a never ending process of testing whether our set of beliefs about what the truth is matches reality.

It is possible (likely? since you are relatively new here) that IC performs a most amazing manoeuvre to avoid cognitive dissonance.

He regards the Tales of Christian/Hebrew mythology as being descriptive of reality. I.e. as histories that, were evidence presented properly and the witness sufficiently open-minded, would convince.

You are supposing, erroneously, that he is aware of his involvement and attachment to ‘the irrational’. That is your mistake.

His system functions for him because there is no dissonance in it. Adam & Eve actually existed. God parted the Red Sea. Etc.

And simultaneously he evinces (I think) remarkable skill in handling, for example, his ultra-rational and quite coherent view of those epistemological fields — on one end hard science, on the other the soft and ultra-soft pseudoscience sciences that involve projection of content by way of desire.

My view is that religious view can only be understood as located on that extreme end of the hierarchical scale.

But I cannot get IC to admit this, to confess, no matter how intense the beatings and beratings.

Like Michael Corleone “this makes me very angry”. But its all righteous anger. A deeply beautiful and spiritual anger …

I don't assume IC doesn't understand this. But he considers THAT sort of truth insufficient, He wants TRUTH/CERTAINTY which can only be by irrational belief/faith..

No, you have it wrong, as I said.

[Immanuel Can]

Biology is the hardest of sciences .

No, Physics is. Biology's number three.

I have the Marxist bias in my reasoning. If you want to say the Marxist bias is a misleading bias then you need to explain why .

Oh, very easily. Almost everything Marx predicted failed to come true. On top of that, every single polity that tried to put his ideas into operation collapsed economically and killed people by the thousands and millions. That's a pretty clear failure, I'd say...nothing else one can think of has ever come close to failing so spectacularly.